I probably shouldn't have called Dov Charney a schmuck. I have never met Dov Charney. I tend to assume that people who have allegedly sexually harassed employees are schmucks. Take from that what you will.
In response to the several people who have commented on this blog regarding Charney and the Unite-HERE drive at American Apparel, I offer the following clarifications and responses:
Folks who claim that the Yaeger piece was pulled because of innacuracies cite no printed correction acknowledging this, and i don't believe one exists. The Yaeger piece is simply no longer accessible via the Village Voice website. Unless someone can produce a written statement by the Village Voice explaining why this web page is no longer accessible, any assumptions to such an explanation strike me as premature and misleading.
Attempts by commenters to dismiss the sexual harassment complaints strike me as contrived, as extremely sketchy, as insufficient, and cast doubt on the veracity of other claims they are making. Whether or not any of this goes to trial, these claims, like all claims of sexual harassment at work, need to be taken seriously. Otherwise you end up with Clarence Thomas. I find Dov Charney's statement in the infamous Jane article, quoted by a Washington Square News columnist, that "women initiate most domestic violence," deeply troubling.
Commenters seem torn on when AA began providing health care for workers. One claims that health care was implemented sometime after the union drive and launches into a spirited attack on a journalist who critiques the company for relying on the state to provide health care to its workers, another claims this never happened, and that management always made availabe health care for an $8/wk worker contribution. Which is it?
Commenters claim that UNITE HERE duped workers into believing Charney didn't want the union but offer no proof of this. I remain skeptical.
Commenter "Julio" argues that workers could have simply gone up the block to the LA Times to complain. I wonder how long they could have kept their jobs if they had done so openly or had been discovered doing so clandestinely. I'm not buying Julio's argument.
Commenters claim that behindthelabel.org, which is a project of UNITE-HERE, cannot be unbiased in its attacks on the company, but i'm wondering why. Why is Dov Charney so opposed to his workers having a collective voice? What kind of equilibrim has he created in which workers can't speak unless through channels initiated and controlled by management? Just who printed those armbands anyway? How does an ostensibly "pro-labor" or "pro-worker" company justify captive audience anti-union rallies and threats of plant closure?
High wages, benefits, and even paid time off are no substitute for a voice on the job. If American Apparel's corporate brand managers want to keep representing their product as "socially responsible," they have some questions they need to answer. And it isn't me they have to answer to.
This article is very interesting and raises good points. It's also nearly eight years old, deals with an leadership slate (Mazur), except for Romney, which is no longer in charge of the UNITE side of UNITE-HERE, and doesn't seem to understand why UNITE may have been seeking fewer elections (perhaps they were instead trying to secure card check agreements.)
ReplyDeleteI won't deny that there's some disturbing stuff here, but it's clear even from this article that the union was already trying to take some steps to rectify the situation. Fitch's main criticism of the union is their "organizing vacuum." Yet when they do conduct organizing campaigns, when they do try to build strong committees and challenge anti-union employers, commenters on this site want to use this article as anti-union propaganda. Something about that seems perverse.
Zach,
ReplyDeleteIt's no secret that STAND UNITE is facing serious financial difficulties. The AFL-CIO is on the verge of breaking up and with that STAND risks losing major Union deposits for its Amalgamated Banking business.
It is difficult to see what benefits would accrue to AA employees if they were to unionize. What more could they expect? What realistic return could they count on for their union dues?
Why doesn't STAND hit up the many other operations in LA that are out and out sweat shops? Is it because dues generated by unionizing AA would have made for a nice juicy addition to the badly battered union coffers? And that unionizing a bunch of little shops would have just been too time consuming?
Anyhow, that's just food for thought. STAND UNITE is very different from its antecedent organizations. What would the founders of International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union say if they saw STAND today? Remember ILGWU was formed as a result of a revolt against both corrupt bosses and corrupt/conservative unions. Those original pissed off Jewish ladies I am sure would not be too impressed.
And now what's all this about: "I tend to assume that people who have allegedly sexually harassed employees are schmucks. Take from that what you will."
So we apply the presumption of innocence thing only to people who are accused of things we're comfortable with? Given his allegedly voracious appetite and incredible arrogance I would think he'd have hundreds of lawsuits pending. I hate sexual harassers. Hate them. But unless I have credible evidence or a conviction, I don't assume anything. That presumption of innocence thing we do is you know, a hallmark of out justice system. You may want to reconsider your phraseology.
Forgive my ignorance -- i have no idea what STAND is. Is that the LA branch or something?
ReplyDeleteUNITE never had a problem with its coffers - certainly not in 2003, before most of the AFL-CIO split rancor had reached its present level.
I have no idea why they chose to try to organize AA over "other operations" in LA. Perhaps they felt that AA's stated commitment to social justice might make things like threats of plant closures and captive audience anti-union rallies less likely.
Sorry zach. I said STAND when I meant UNITE. Sometimes I'm dyslexic like that.
ReplyDeleteYou wrote:
"UNITE never had a problem with its coffers." If only that were true. Please read any recent press on UNITE. The decline in union dues based revenue is steep and it's been in the offing for years. It's no secret. Do your research. Someone has to pay those $365,000 per anum salaries ya know!
Dues-based revenue was in decline prior to the merger, i'm sure, but the union still had tons of money because of the bank. What they needed was new organizing.
ReplyDeleteAnd I don't know about Raynor, but John Wilhelm's been taking steady and considerable pay cuts ever since he assumed the presidency of HERE.
The Union owned Bank's (Amalgamated?) position is now imperiled, especially guiven that many of its large depositors are other Unions who do not see eye to eye with UNITE in the whole AFL-CIO sitch.
ReplyDeleteBut never mind all that. The other side alleges that the employees simply did not want to unionize. It's already on record that Charney sent out a notice to every AA employye telling them that their job would not be endangered if they chose to join the union. AA claims that they offered to hold a vote and STAND declined fearful of losing. Now STAND is free to insinuate that they and the employees were victims of union bashing.
How convenient. So those are claims made by AA. What's the union's take on all this? What is the union going to do for the employees? At what cost? I'm seriously curious.
"anonymous,"...
ReplyDelete"imperiled" is probablt too strong an adjective. And anyway, all the stuff with AA happened BEFORE the IAM et al started yanking their accounts, so that point is moot.
It sounds like you need to address your concerns about UNITE!/Unite-HERE! to folks from the union. But there's no way a union like Unite-HERE! would sign a contract which would not be a substantial improvement from the previous conditions at the plant. (Particularly since the only way a contract gets signed is if the workers vote to ratify it.)
It seems really odd to read the clear paranoia ya'll have with regards to unions, which seems like a clear attempt to divert discussion away from American Apparel and the valid points Zach is making about the problems with the company. We can debate about unions, if you want, but I would argue that the increasingly less-progressive Village Voice is hardly an objective source on union politics, especially when the company is facing its own labor troubles. And more importantly, trying to smear unions instead of talking about the real, substantive problems with the ways in which a so-called progressive company treats employees and profits on women's bodies is cowardly, and belies the idea that you, if you represent American Apparel, actually hold and work to promote progressive ideals. Real progressives would understand the powerful force unions can be in American politics, and would be interested in strengthening, not villifying them. I'll take my personal experiences with UNITE-HERE locals, and an understanding that all organizations need to be pushed and can make mistakes, over these attempts to slander hardworking people any day.
ReplyDeleteBut let's get back to the real issue, shall we? Dov Charney is on the record saying and doing a number of things that indict America Apparel's image as a progressive company, especially when it comes to women. As a brand, the company relies on extremely suggestive advertising, focusing almost entirely on young women and their bodies. This is the kind of thing that 2nd-wavers would have been plastering with "This Ad Hurts Women" stickers a generation ago, and the complete absence of male models, the total reliance on young, female bodies to sell clothes, complete with little biographies seems like a clear attempt to corporatize the young women who appear in the advertisements. There's certainly a legitimate 3rd-wave argument to be made that these are their bodies, and they can do what they want with them, but if they're only getting hired because Charney wants to have sex with them, as some of the seuxual harassment claims charge, then the lines of consent and empowerment get very blurred.
I've found the excerpts from the suits that have been filed against him pretty compelling, and I'll admit a willingness to start out siding with the women in this case, especially given that Charney's defense hasn't been that he didn't do the things they said he did, but rather that the women consented to his behavior and advances. This puts him in a position where it's much more difficult to presume his innocence, especially since most sexual harassment and assault law is written to give credence to the victim's statement that he or she didn't consent. The idea that Charney should be swimming in sexual harassment suits if he were really guilty is absurd; there is a huge amount of intimidation brought to bear when women try to speak out against sexual harassment, and the fact that these few have so far, despite what seems to be an ongoing pattern of behavior on Charney's part, seems eloquent testimony to the atmosphere and treatment of women at American Apparel. If you really want to make this a fight about UNITE-HERE v. American Apparel, how about comparing the position of women in the two organizations? Maria Elena Durazo is an inspiration and may be the international's next president; there's no comparable woman at American Apparel.
I'm completely disgusted with this callous attempt to defend a brand instead of the hardworking people who make the clothes. If this is your idea of defending the company, it's pathetic; I will never buy American Apparel again, will encourage bands to stop using your t-shirts for tour shirts, and will write to every progressive group out there to encourage them to stand up to this kind of crass insensitivity and cowardliness.
Sorry Alyssa,
ReplyDeleteI don't know that there's any point having a dialogue with you - you seem to have already made up your mind and you are making all sorts of wild presumptions. But I will, due to my eternally sunny and optimistic demeanor, assume you are open minded and fair and at least make an effort.
I don't work for AA. I'm just trying to understand what's going on. My dad was the shop steward where he worked - I have nothing against unions per se, but I know how corrupt they can be - that is undeniable. It's not paranoia, it's fact. I'm not saying all unions are bad, but they are also not all good and anyone with a critical eye ought to take that into account - I'm talking about the corruption and the infiltration of mob elements etc. etc. all well documented and extensively reported.
But anyhow - yow! What a rant! Where do I begin? How about just factual innaccuracies then?
You said: the complete absence of male models, the total reliance on young, female bodies to sell clothes, complete with little biographies seems like a clear attempt to corporatize the young women who appear in the advertisements.
Uh what? What does that mean exactly? There are plenty of men in AA advertising. I believe Charney himself appeared in an ad with his buttocks bared. Also there are men at the retail stores etc. What on earth does corporatizing mean when applied to people paid for their work?
And what's all this about Duranzo? You're comparing a union to a company? What?? Look I have the benefit of being anonymous and you've chosen to let me into your life by providing links to your blogs. I don't have a blog. We're both democrats and libras btw. You're on record as saying "all Americans deserve good union jobs." Is it not possible to have a good job and not be unionized? As I've mentioned before, the US manufacturing base has all but decamped to cheaper friendlier climes in the 3rd world. Charney's broken that mold and built a thriving manufacturing business in the US. The usual dichotomy - employee vs employer no longer applies. I read about his employees loving him and I believe it. What is a union going to do to add to their bottom line? And how... Rhodesian of you to presume that the employees have no minds of their own and did not decide that they in fact did not want a union.
So let me understand... you are taking the position that you're the one actually defending the "hardworking people who make the clothes?"
Heh. That's funny. It's cute, but you do realize you have completely infantilized thousands of hard working individuals.
You are of course entiteled to your opinion on the outcome of the sexual harassment cases. You've seen excerpts of the cases? Do you have a URL I can look at? I didn't know that any of those had been made public. OK. Now I have to go do some actual work. We'll talk some more I'm sure.
Hey,
ReplyDeleteThe fact that I posted here means I'm willing to debate. My feelings may be strong, but I do think it would be advisable to suggest that that possibility is closed off before you say anything substantive.
I admit I messed up: I've seen several hundred AA ads in LA, New York, and Boston, but none with men in them. If there are any running online, please pass them along to me. I'd like to see more.
The New York Times magazine printed excerpts of the allegations in the Times magazine a couple of weeks ago. I don't know if the link is still up; let me know if you can't find it, and I'll post it from Lexis.
Let me explain why I'm so pissed off. From reading these comments, there seems to be a trend of ignoring the substantive allegations against America Apparel by bashing unions. I do think that's contemptible, and I'm going to keep calling people on it until they actually substantively address the issues that got AA called before the NLRB, and that may be contributing to a workplace where sexual harassment and coercion happen.
I do believe that being in a union is better for workers across the board, not only because collective bargaining helps lock in better pay, health care, and other benefits, but because it contributes to democracy in the workplace in terms of establishing independent grievance boards, among other measures. No one on any of these threads has any refutation to that argument, and it's getting increasingly frustrating. I do, honestly and on principle, believe that a job where you have the right to form or join a union is a better workplace than one in which you can't, and that union democracy makes workers stronger. Mr. Charney's statements about unions upsetting a delicate balance are misleading; management always has disproportionate amount of bargaining power, and a union is an effective way of balancing that out. I fail to see how my passionate belief in increasing the importance and strength of every voice on a shop floor infantilizes workers, certainly not any more than your allegations of union corruption.
I'm actually in the middle of an interesting, and substantive email exchange with one of AA's managers. She's willing to engage in a real debate about some of these issues, and I only wish that some more direct, and penetrating conversation would happen here.
I've seen some Male AA Models. Generally in advertisements also featuring female models in compromising positions.
ReplyDeleteCorrupt unions are bad. Mob unions are bad. Inept unions are bad. Unite-HERE! is currently none of the above. HERE is the only union in history to ever voluntarily submit itself to federal audits to expunge organized crime from all its locals. Leaders in the union like John Wilhelm fought a successful battle to transform the union into a militant, organizing union with an exciting and effective plan to win. UNITE! never had any mob presence i'm aware of. I know far less about that union though. But ultimately, this is beside the point. Because the burden here should be on Dov Charney's shoulders. Charney should have embraced the union drive. He should have let go of the infantile idea that social responsibility is his brand and his alone and encouraged the union to organize those other "out and out sweatshop" shops "Anonymous" spoke of earlier. Instead he resorted to some of the oldest anti-worker tactics in the big book of corporate power. I hope you all find that as dissapointing and as hypocritical as i do.
Alyssa,
ReplyDeleteThat AA relies mostly on young, female, bodies to sell its products is hardly outlandish. Manufacturers the economy over use precisely the same tactics to sell everything from any industry. And it's done because it works. If anything is the problem, it's marketing in general and not AA. The fact of the matter is cultural norms of beauty that have been ingrained into our heads are based on a feminine archetype.
No one really wants to buy anything that recalls the bulky, rugged frame of androgeny, so it's only natural that by associating some thing with a culturally embedded standard of beauty, you can expect a consumer to covet that product as they do the aesthetic.
Besides, the main thrust of AA's claim to being progressive seems to be bear on their vertical integration more than anything. If you recall, it was the cut-throat capitalism of the 70s an 80s that lead to outsourcing and all its abuses.
So in a time when the largest companies got to where they are by maintaining the smallest infrastructure possible, for an independent manufacturer to return to the theoretical roots of industrial capitalism is, in its own right, progressive. It's the same difference between a liberal and an economic-liberal, so if you read the writing on the wall, there's no real inconsistency in that claim to progressiveness.
And if you come across those links to the excerpts that you promised “Anonymous,” I'd like to see them. I'll I've been able to come across in terms of the charges Charney is facing are the vague allegations from a New York Times piece.
Cheers
Zach,
ReplyDeleteYou're totally right. I hope that nothing I've said can be construed to imply that UNITE is corrupt or mobbed up or anything. I'm just saying that maybe it is possible that in their excitement to unionize AA, the UNITE people may have been a tad overzealous. AA claims that UNITE employed questionable tactics in its drive. AA claims that they offered to have a vote on unionization and that UNITE refused, presumably because they knew they were going to lose. Charney distributed a notice to all the factory employees assuring them that supporting the union would not cost them their jobs. I don't see why I ought to give AA's claims any less credibility than the union's as they are both equally self-interested.
Should Charney have embraced the union drive? Again, no one has yet to tell me what unionization would have accomplished - what the workers would have gained. What does a union do when the workers they are trying to help don't want them? They do what UNITE did. Pack up and go home.
And again, I'm sorry if I am anonymous. But I don't have a blog so I don't know what my other choices are. If it helps any my name is Eva. Pleased to meet you all.
I don't disagree with you on a lot of the points you make about AA's business model. I just think it's blatantly hypocritical to be willing to give workers a lot of benefits but be scared off by the workplace democracy a union would represent. I guess I see unions as a lot more important to the workplace climate, and to the future of progressive politics than many young people on the left do. That's partially because of great personal experiences with UNITE-HERE and SEIU and what unions can do to change politics in my home city and others, and partially a reading of the historical evidence. And make no mistake about it: Charney's public statements on unionization make it clear that he is just as afraid of union power as many other, and less responsible corporations. Just staying in the country isn't enough for me to consider a corporation progressive, and letting American Apparel get away with their labor stance and claim a progressive label is a slippery slope.
ReplyDeleteAnd one of the ways Charney has tried to spin both himself and the brand is as sexually liberated and progressive. I think that's part of the reason they try to sell the personalities of the models. I know that what they're doing is nothing new, and I actually don't really object to sexy models: I object to marketing yourself as sexually progressive while also allowing a climate (or to be fair, the behavior of one person) where sexual objectification may determine hiring, and where men may be dictating the terms of sexual liberation to women.
Excerpts from the New York Times Magazine article about American Apparel:
ReplyDelete" Among the allegations: using crude language and gestures, conducting job interviews in his underwear, ordering the hiring of women in whom he had a sexual interest and giving one of the plaintiffs a vibrator."
" The women suing Mr. Charney and American Apparel are not alleging that he pressured them for sex. What they say in their lawsuits is that they faced a ''wholly intolerable'' and ''intimidating'' work atmosphere that subjected them to ''egregious'' sexual comments and behavior.
One of the women, Heather Pithie, who worked at American Apparel as a recruiter between June 2004 and last March, charges that Mr. Charney referred to women in vulgar derogatory and sexual terms. She says in her suit that she was ''terrified'' of being alone with him.
She said he once called her into his office with a co-worker and gave them both vibrators, saying, ''It's great during sex.'' At another time, the lawsuit says, Ms. Pithie was recruiting in Los Angeles when Mr. Charney instructed her to talk to a young woman because she was ''hot.'' He offered the woman a job on the spot, she said.
Another plaintiff, Rebecca Brinegar, who coordinated trade shows and worked in customer service between December 2002 and last January, charges that Mr. Charney exposed himself ''in the nude in front of her.'' The third woman, Mary Nelson, 33, a sales manager from November 2003 to January, said in her lawsuit that he invited her to masturbate with him.
Ms. Pithie and Ms. Brinegar, who filed a joint lawsuit and are represented by Gloria Allred, the well-known women's rights lawyer, said they quit their jobs. Ms. Nelson, who is represented by Keith A. Fink, said she was fired after Mr. Charney learned she intended to see a lawyer."
" Hannah Rappleye, an 18-year-old sophomore at New School University who worked as a sales associate in an American Apparel store in New York for about three months this year, said she had no complaints and left her job on her own volition last May. But she said she would never seek to work at American Apparel again.
Mr. Charney's first words to her during one of his visits, she said, were ''You look hot today.'' And when she expressed her objections to a sexually explicit picture on a store wall, her colleagues laughed it off, she said.
''At first they make you feel special,'' Ms. Rappleye said. ''If you were chosen to work for the company, that meant that you were attractive enough to sell sex successfully.''
''But after a while,'' she said, ''it feels disgusting.''"
Hi Eva-
ReplyDeleteIs your question about the benefits workers derive from unions specific to this case, or more general? If the latter, I'd point you to the example of New Haven, where Locals 34 and 35 of HERE and SEIU 1199 have done tremendous work to not only win higher wages, pensions, and better job training for their members, but have also organized to influence the impact that development has on their members' neighborhoods, to push for greater diversity in hiring, and to elect progressive officials to city government and push the strong Democratic party further to the left. I'd also encourage you to look to the long history of the labor movement, and to consider the instrumental role labor has played in winning humane working conditions and working hours, eliminating child labor, and improving safety standards for American workers. UNITE and HERE when they were separate unions, did important work for immigrants' rights during the Immigrant Worker Freedom Rides. (I'm sorry I didn't respond to your query about Maria Elena Durazo earlier; what I meant to point out is that if supporters of American Apparel are attempting to answer charges of a threatening and intimidating workplace environment with union-bashing, they might do well to consider the structure and aims of the organization they're criticizing, and since one argument doesn't really answer the other, the union's progressive stance on and treatment of women is worth noting. Presidents of locals are employees of unions, and thus the comparison to business is somewhat equivalent.)
In the case of AA, I'd urge you to look to the fact that the National Labor Relations Board, now an increasingly conservative body under President Bush, did censure American Apparel for their behavior during the union drive. Both sides will obviously have their own versions of the behavior that resulted in each side, but according to American labor law, Mr. Charney was inhibiting the right of his employees to organize. Under those circumstances, I think it's difficult to view the results of UNITE's drive as conclusive. I think this would also make a great piece of investigative reporting, since workers' voices are conspicuously absent from much of the news coverage of American Apparel.
Lisa, simply because downsizing and flexible production are corporate vogue/the current paradigm for global capital doesn't make a return to gilded age industrial models "progressive."
ReplyDeleteEva, you can write your name onto your posts by selecting "other" when you want to post a comment. I apologize in advance for blogger's discourses of alterity but i suppose it's better to be an Other than a nameless non-subject.
I have yet to see any proof - or even print source - and blogs don't count as responsible journalism for these purposes - suggesting that Unite-HERE! employed questionable tactics. I've also never seen a contested union drive in which the employer didn't allege some sort of questionable behavior on the union's part. I have read several different source, easily googleable, which refer to captive audience meetings and threats of plant closure, both of which are deplorable, and, as i have been saying, evince a clear disdain for the rights of the workers who his company claims to stand up for.
I think Charney should have welcomed the union drive for a couple reasons. 1, people like me, and the labor movement more broadly, would feel a lot better about American Apparel if the workers there had an independent voice on the job, an independent grievance procedure, and were involved in the fight to organize other garment workers to ensure that those workers could have the kinds of wages and benefits AA pays. Making AA union could actually increase business, since most unions buy a lot of clothes and only buy union. Hell, SEIU has its own catalog with sports bras and bowling balls and everything.
2.I think a unionized AA would get far better PR than the anti-union AA is currently attracting. Rather than looking like a hypocrite, Charney would look like a progressive. That couldn't hurt business. And if AA's wages and benefits are so greatI don't see why workers would demand much more in raises than enough to cover dues payments. The main thing, though, is that any workplace without an independent grievance procedure is a pretty scary place to be. I should know. I'm about to head into one.
If, indeed, the workers just didn't want the union, that's one thing. But numerous sources are saying that the company actively tried to scare workers - and succeeded - away from the union. Which doesn't sound too progressive to me at all.
I hope i'm wrong and that everything at AA is peachy keen and the union drive ended because things are just so rosy, but i know better.
Hi everyone,
ReplyDeleteAlyssa said
I object to marketing yourself as sexually progressive while also allowing a climate (or to be fair, the behavior of one person) where sexual objectification may determine hiring
all I can say is, have you been to a fancy restaurant lately? Try to find one girl who is bigger than a size 6 or remotely plain looking. Hiring for looks happens all the time, for better or for worse, and it seems wrong to single out aa for finger pointing.
If I guy is conducting interviews in his underwear, you as the interviewee better know going in that it's not gonna be like working for the bank manager. The fashion industry is a sexualized one. Sex sells clothes (and cars, and deodorant and toothpaste...). Different working environments have different standards. If Dov Charney was doing all this as a hollywood producer (i worked for one for a while, so I know) no one would bat an eyelash.
I know people inside Charneys office, and the girls with the lawsuits were no innocent little flowers themselves. One had talked about feeling up a woman working under her and had dirty MSN convo's with other people while in the office. Then they turn around and complain of a sexualized environment that they themselves contributed to. It seems to me that its more about the New American Dream -- finding someone you can sue, than anything else.
So basically you're resorting to the "they were sluts, they should have known better" line of argumentation. I'm sorry, but that isn't goign to cut it here. Dov Charney isn't a force of nature. He isn't the raw expression of male sexuality he seems to want us to think he is. He's a human being. He should start taking responsibility for his actions, and you should start holding him responsible for them.
ReplyDeleteZach, I'm not saying the girls were sluts, that's your term not mine, but that they actively contributed to an environment that they are now suing over. That and other facts surrounding the case seem fishy. I'm not gonna condone Dov Charney's behavior, but I will call into question a lawsuit over it that seems more like a money grab than anything else. Every time a false or frivolous sexual harassment suit is brought down, it makes it that much harder for real victims to be taken seriously.
ReplyDeleteWhat exactly am i supposed to hold him responsible for? Being a man slut?
Oh, i don't know. How about claiming that women initiate most domestic violence?
ReplyDeleteNo, you're right, that comment always struck me as VERY odd, to say the least. It seems rather ignorant from a guy smart enough to build a $250 million dollar company from the ground up. Charney is certainly a strange character but he never struck me as that dumb. What does it even mean, women start it because "dinner's cold, bitch"?
ReplyDeleteSomeone on Jewlicious brought it up...here's the whole quote:
He pursues his point. “Out of a thousand sexual harassment claims how many do you think are exploitive? There are almost no sexual harassment charges from men against women. They’re not acceptable; it’s considered that only women are the victims.
“Women initiate most domestic violence, yet out of a thousand cases of domestic violence maybe one is involving a man.” And this, Charney decries, “has made a victim culture out of women.”
analysis from the other comment here
The first paragraph talks about the difficulty male victims of domestic violence have in seeking legal redress. Surely you can’t find offense in that. There are male victims of domestic violence and it’s a huge shame to call the cops and tell them your little wife beat you up. So many just clam up.
The second paragraph simply makes no sense. None. The full quote is as follows: Women initiate most domestic violence, yet out of a thousand cases of domestic violence maybe one is involving a man. So what does this mean? That domestic violence does not involve men? That it only involves what, violent lesbian couples?
Having been grossly misquoted by the press myself, I know you can only believe....half of what you read.
Food for thought.
Abby, i posetd a response to you yesterday morning and it got lost by he blogger comments client. I'm too tired to try to remember it right now, but i'll get around to it by tomorrow.
ReplyDeleteI think that we can all agree that Charney's comments were patently odd on a charitable reading and creepy on a non-chartiable reading. However, as Abby mentions above, misquotation and decontextualized quotation are rampant. As are comments that are made without much thought.
ReplyDeleteBut one thing that we should note is that though the man has generated an awful lot of contoversy, the evidence against him is rather thin. There is the much publicized domestic violence comments and allegations of sexual harassment. And pointing to this evidence over and over again doesn't make it any more compelling.
One thing that I wonder about: why doesn't anyone just write Dov and ask him about his views? If the comments he made are representative about what he thinks, and he was bold enough to say them to a reporter from a mainstream magazine, surely he'll be willing to repeat them.
The main deterrent to reporting domestic violence isn't the shame of emasculated male victims, it's the fear (and maybe shame too) that millions of women in abusive relationships around the world have, too afraid of being further brutalized or of having to restart their lives alone in the nebulous social position of "the battered."
ReplyDeleteI don't see much of a disconnect, Abby, in the two paragraphs, and i don't really agree with the comment you quote. There is a common logic of male privilege, of masculinist privilegings of virility, stregnth, and dominance which unites the shame of being cowed by feminine power with the denial of male-initiated violence and the attempt to pathologize women who have survived or experienced domestic violence.
If any of this stuff goes to trial, it will be, um, interesting to see what Charney has to say for himself.
The comment i lost was smarter than this.
Zach,
ReplyDeleteThat response was really lame. I mean REALLY lame. I never said anything about emasculated men being the biggest problem in the realm of domestic violence. Please take your ideological blinders off and address the spurious charge of misogyny that rests squarely on that extremely poor quote. Tossing the misogyny label about willy nilly only serves to reduce the impact of the charge. And that doesn't help anyone.
I wasn't accusing you of saying that. I didn't respond to anything in your post that wasn't italicized. I was accusing Dov Charney and taking issue with the analysis of the person whose comments you excerpted. I do think that Charney's words (both paragraphs) belie a deeply, deeply misogynist understanding of female sexuality. I take Charney's statements very seriously and I take them at face value and I'm very disturbed by the claims he is making. I hold that there is a very clear link between the two "paragraphs" of Charney's rant, and i think that this link is a very deep frustration with feminism.
ReplyDeleteHe phrases his comments in part as a feminist claim. He says the fact that we don't accuse women of more domestic violence has made a victim culture of women, that we're constructing women as victims because we aren't sufficiently considering the extent to which they are aggressors. I think this is at very best a silly statement in that I don't think anyone doesn't think that the potential to abuse is confined by biological gender characteristics, if not culturally constructed categories. But I also think that Charney takes his claim further by denying the seriousness and the brutality of domestic violence against women, which is really messed up.
A full 60% of the people working in charney's office are women. Including the people he counts on the most. Much higher than the national average. Would a misogynist, a man who hates women, build a structure where he has to count on women for his business to succeed? And I really don't think he's fucking them all. To imply so undoes in one sweep all of their individual credibility and merit.
ReplyDeleteAnd I really don't think he's fucking them all. To imply so undoes in one sweep all of their individual credibility and merit.
ReplyDeleteI never did so. Doesn't mean the sexual harassment complaint shouldn't be taken seriously, though, rather than dismissed as money grubbing.
A full 60% of the people working in charney's office are women. Including the people he counts on the most. Much higher than the national average. Would a misogynist, a man who hates women, build a structure where he has to count on women for his business to succeed?
I never said Charney "hated" women. While that is the literal definition of misogynist, what I meant by the term was more i\along the lines of a mistrust or fear of the politicization of women's sexual freedom and anti-domestic violence organizing.
I don't mean to get all bitchy about stuff, but like I said above, doesn't it seem a little bit lame to get really worked up about comments made a long time ago in a suspect context (a school newpaper?) Is there ANYTHING else that shows him to be a mysogynist besides some stray comments that may very well be taken out of context and a few law suits that are as of yet left unsettled? Because otherwise this all seems like so much speculation and is a bit of a waste of time.
ReplyDeleteAnd like I said, why doesn't anyone just ASK the guy what he thinks about this stuff? The man does not generally seem shy about expressing himself...
those quotations didn't come from a school paper - i thought they were from the Jane article. Does anyone know?
ReplyDeleteWait, which quotes? I thought you meant the quotes about women and sexual assault. Those were from the McGill Daily a few years back.
ReplyDeleteoh, i get it now. Thanks. Well, as much as I love to mock school newspapers, since I'm not aware of any retraction, I think it's valid to continue to take the quotes as seriously as i think folks should be taking the lawsuits.
ReplyDeleteAnd I would be interested to hear what Charney has to say for himself, but i think there are people far better suited to ask him.
than me, that is
ReplyDeleteCheck out this culture jam of the AA in Montreal on BND 05:
ReplyDeletehttp://optative.net/bnd/
That is some funny shit with "Dov" arguing with his father Maurice!