It’s been almost three weeks and a large (ahem) segment of
the American population is still not over the business strategy of Abercrombie
& Fitch’s CEO. What is Mike Jeffries’ crime? Jeffries is quoted as saying: “ ‘In every school there are the cool and
popular kids, and then there are the not-so-cool kids. Candidly, we go after
the cool kids. We go after the attractive all-American kid with a great
attitude and a lot of friends. A lot of people don’t belong [in our clothes],
and they can’t belong. Are we exclusionary? Absolutely. Those companies that
are in trouble are trying to target everybody: young, old, fat, skinny. But
then you become totally vanilla. You don’t alienate anybody, but you don’t
excite anybody, either.’” (via Huffington Post) Jeffries’ crime is that he
said something exclusionary. Neverminding the fact that 99.9% of the population
acts exclusionary 99.9% of the time, Jeffries is being punished for actually saying
the words.
Before upending the irrationality of Jeffries’ critics, let
me be clear that I am also offended by Jeffries’ comments, but for a
completely different reason. That is to say, clothes don’t make people cool. A&F
clothing may be what beautiful, young, and popular kids are wearing but that
doesn’t equal being cool. “Cool” is when someone wear what the fuck they want because
they don’t give a fuck what other people think. Cool people don’t try and Jefferies is obviously trying. I
am also somewhat puzzled that someone as unattractive as Jeffries would want
to cater solely to beautiful people as if making money will conceal his physical
unattractiveness. Maybe, but someone’s got issues and it’s not hard to imagine
why. But, that amounts to an ad hominem attack which is neither here nor there.
Forget I mentioned it.
As mentioned, Jeffries is being lambasted for speaking the
words already made implicit by Abercrombie advertisements. Since when did human
beings stop investing is symbology? For those offended by Jeffries’ words,
they’ve somehow missed the inherent meaning of his company’s ads and it
possible that said people are not as smart as they think they are. Oh, but I
guess it’s different when one has proof of an Illuminati conspiracy to have
beautiful people take over the world. Wait, is this what Jeffries’ critics are
angry about, that he has the nerve to think some people aren’t beautiful? Remember
how I was neverminding something earlier? Let me do some more neverminding that
few people intentionally go looking for a mate that is unattractive to them,
meaning, there are individuals who
are unattractive. That being the case, I loathe this idea that everyone is
beautiful, especially that everyone is beautiful on the outside. That is simply
bullshit.
The idea may be bullshit but that doesn’t mean we should
exclude people under the law because of it. That said, Jeffries’ marketing strategy
clearly isn’t illegal. However, his critics are acting like he is doing
something illegal and I guess he is in the court of public opinion, a court
by-the-way that has never had any credibility beyond holding a monkey trial. In
the court of public opinion, I guess it’s illegal to exclude what is now the
majority of the population from buying your product. Only, wait a second. Should
I – as a 5’6” 140lbs man – call for the head of the head of Big & Tall men’s
clothing store because they don’t make clothes in my size? Of course not, nor
should a skinny woman get indignant about not being able to find clothes that
fit in a plus-size woman’s store. What’s really going on here is this:
Jeffries’ critics are trying to justify their lifestyle which, not
surprisingly, consists of over-consuming calories and not exercising. With
being overweight now normal for Americans, that segment of the population
wishes to homogenize the overall population to the point that everyone is special
until no one is special. I understand not wanting to be discriminated against,
but with this attack on Jeffries, America is in actual danger of becoming
vanilla, to borrow the man’s word. Nobody will be exciting anymore; we’re not
allowed to be! With these attacks on individuality and capitalism, Ayn Rand is
surely spinning in her grave. (Author’s note: This is not to say I think either
individuality or capitalism are so great, but everyone else sure pays those two
ideas some French-kissing lip-service. Or used to.)
If it’s okay to be overweight, if we’re supposed to agree to
this notion that it is not okay to judge others, then why isn’t it okay for Jeffries
to be a douche? What’s that, we’re still allowed to judge what’s on the inside?
Right, right; it’s what’s on the inside that really counts especially when people
are afraid to be judged on their outside. That’s why Jeffries is a douche. I
completely understand now.
If there’s anything Jeffries is guilty of it is cutting
costs for his company by not including larger sizes of clothing anymore and
subsequently trying to promote his brand without gauging the weight of his
words to an overly-sensitive audience. People are irrational though and
Jeffries seemed never to consider that old axiom by the prophet George Carlin,
“Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.” Liberal,
conservative, doesn’t matter; stupidity and irrationality does not
discriminate.
Update 5/22/13
Update 5/22/13
The fact
that people are attacking me instead of my argument supporting Jeffries’
business practice confirms that both our critics are basing their distain
purely upon emotion, no logic involved whatsoever. If what is wrong with
Jeffries’ business practice cannot be expressed cogently with words, his
critics have no credibility. If his critics are his critics based on some kind
of gut-feeling, then the same people have no business being offended by anyone
who discriminates based on a gut-feeling. For example, if someone is a
homophobe based upon some gut-feeling that homosexuality is wrong, that person
is a douche, right? Problem is, anyone
who levels a criticism based solely upon emotion is still a douche. Sure,
Jeffries may be a douche but his
critics – who can’t logically explain why they are angry – are then douches as
well. This is exactly why appeals to emotion do not trump rationality when
examining at what Jeffries said about his business. If I lack sympathy for
Jeffries critics’ point-of-view, it’s mostly because whatever bizarre logic
they’ve based their anger on is inconsistent. If one is going to be indignant
about the business practices of A&F, I demand
of those people that there be outrage at other businesses who dare target a
demographic.
Now, if I’m
wrong that Jeffries’ critics are just trying to justify their own lifestyle,
then what point are they trying to make, that no one should ever discriminate?
Well, I’ve already blown that assertion to smithereens and haven’t heard a
remotely intelligent rebuttal, probably because there is none. Maybe it is the
case that people feel as though this is really about bullying? I’m asking because
I did see this comment made on one message board and I am baffled as to how
Jeffries’ words can be construed as bullying. If it is a case of bullying, isn’t
bullying A&F with protests and boycotts just as wrong? Oh well, you can’t
tell people who react to the world emotionally that two wrong STILL don’t make
a right.
No comments:
Post a Comment