Comments on: Is Dov Charney The New Larry Flynt?

By: nick

nick — Sat, 02 Sep 2006 16:52:28 +0000

mr. charney is hardly mr. flynt.
mr. flynt’s move into politic action and the defense of personal freedom was the byproduct of persecution (albeit for making nasty porn).
mr. charney’s claims to purity are tarnished by both his personal (sexual) actions and his proffesional actions.
while AA made a name for themselves as “sweat” free, they are also one of the only non-union textile manufacturers in the states. the heavier charges levied against charney and AA are for “union-busting” on site, not an old man making pervy adds or trying to sleep with his coworkers.
unfortunately, like most “left” concepts, the population that demands it is the first to tear it down. while i think AA needs the support, i do feel that it would be appropriate to rid the company of it’s controversial head, as he can only do more damage.
-keep the pervy adds
-keep the the small sizes (come on’ its the only brand where a medium couldn’t fit three of me and goes past my crotch. other companies keep making medium BIGGER, it’s annoying.)
-keep the styles (as to the “worst clothes” comment, AA pretty much has a revovling stock. most of the things in the store “this season” were there last season, and will be there next season. the polos, the t’s, the shorts, the velour track jackets…none of it is “this season”)

By: Weronika Cwir

Weronika Cwir — Fri, 11 Aug 2006 00:24:37 +0000

Dov Charney’s employee here.

I used to be his assistant. Hostile environment? He uses creative metaphors involving elaborate dirty deeds and shouts them out on the phone. I actually thought it was really funny to hear “one million dollars” and “shove your pretty little face up my dog’s ass” in the same sentence from my boss. And I never felt threatened. He’s a lamb! Yeah, he swears a lot. But throw an inventive combo of swear words back at him, and he’ll probably just start laughing with you.

And yes, our stores are plastered with some very sexy images icluding covers of old porn mags. People who are upset by such images should not shop or apply for jobs at American Apparel.

By: Rong

Rong — Wed, 09 Aug 2006 03:34:59 +0000

… It’s true. You just can’t please everyone. So why beat yourself up trying to do that.

Besides, who got who talking about who?

By: derek edison

derek edison — Sun, 06 Aug 2006 10:25:10 +0000

it depends on what you mean by ‘the new larry flynt’. he’s a good self-publicist & he uses sex to promote his business. but, he’s not in a wheelchair, and i don’t think i’ve ever heard him condoning rape.

By: Cameron

Cameron — Fri, 04 Aug 2006 00:16:19 +0000

And what makes an environment hostile?

Rose petals? Happy birthday cake?

Come on…

“The previous comments underscore my point of the effect of media spin.”

Oh yes, I’m all dizzy. Confused even. I’m a zombie. Thank you so very much for readjusting my world view random one named guy on the internet.

By: Matt

Matt — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 22:43:53 +0000

"Um, hostile environment is or can be just as egregious, as it includes unwanted contact with employees."

Not true. It "can" involve contact, but typically does not (see Lexus Nexus). As contact is more likely to be considered quid pro quo as the employee would then be forced to trade sexual behavior (i.e. physical contact) for employment.

3) "Unwanted sexual advances and contact (which is what is being alleged....)"

Again, not true. According to the NY Times and various other sources (including the woman is claiming hostile environment. The previous comments underscore my point of the effect of media spin.

By: Cameron

Cameron — Thu, 03 Aug 2006 20:57:58 +0000

1) AA’s stuff isn’t “just plain awesome”. Well it might be if you’re tiny. I’m not. Most of their shirts just plain piss me off. The 70′s/80′s retro crap they are doing this year makes me laugh: “quick quick, let’s see if we can get people to wear the worst clothing of a whole decade… tee hee”

2) The porn/pseudo porn in their ads and stores is just fricking creepy, especially when it all spills into their tiny kids section

3) Unwanted sexual advances and contact (which is what is being alleged, so let’s just talk in the abstract shall we?) are not part and parcel of “loosing up” anything. They’re wrong.

4) I wish I had a 4. But I don’t. Sorry.

By: Bo Duke

Bo Duke — Wed, 02 Aug 2006 19:59:24 +0000

I think there are other big coporate dudes doing way worse things than Dov. It’s just that he’s eccentric, and always in the media. So it’s easy to focus on the crap he does.

What about Gildan. They impose pregnancy tests, and fire any woman who gets pregnant.

By: TPB, Esq.

TPB, Esq. — Wed, 02 Aug 2006 19:57:13 +0000

Um, hostile environment is or can be just as egregious, as it includes unwanted contact with employees.

By: Matt

Matt — Wed, 02 Aug 2006 05:10:35 +0000

To be clear, it looks like Charney is being charged with “hostile environment””, which I think most would agree is far less egregious when compared to its “quid pro quo” counterpart. Nonetheless I’m sure his eccentric personality has made him a prime candidate for nightly news stories (and Preshrunk) to smear him and his company. However I think the more important question revolves around whether or not journalists and bloggers should give this type of thing any attention at all, at least until there has been a verdict in the case.

I’m sure most of AA’s customer base is composed of politically conscious individuals who feel secure purchasing clothing that hasn’t been produced in sweat shops, by child labor, or under other conditions that violate basic human rights (which is the bulk of clothing sold in the U.S.). [Which, as a side note, I'm surprised that the media has credited style instead of labor-conscious principles for his company’s success.] I would guess these customers would rather not buy clothing from an employer that encourages sexual harassment either. I would also guess that the result of media spin suggesting AA’s CEO is some smarmy sex-crazed businessman who forces all of his employees to engage in sex, or at least sexual banter, is sure to decrease profit margin.

The question then becomes; what is the intended effect of syndicating this news story? Is this to enlighten your audience to the recent slanted NBC report? Is there a benefit to perpetuating speculation as to whether or not sexual harassment actually took place? I think most would agree that this is one of the first wildly successful textile producers and retailers (if not the only) since globalization came to the fore. Is it worthwhile to reinforce news reports that portray a sleazy caricature (I realize it’s not difficult in his case) of a CEO who is actually making social and economic progress?

At the least, maybe we could give the absurd lifestyle and personal habits of pro-sweatshop CEOs some attention too.