(I won’t even bother with UO, because they’re so far beyond hope.)

I found this fake advertisement (above) on a website that spoofs the NY Times (and it’s really worth a look): it’s a posi spoof with mock articles about how the world could be in 9 months if the surge in community volunteerism prompted by the Obama campaign continued being active and vocal about the needs of the people in this country. Of course this particular spoof ad really caught my eye because I’m such a critic of this company anyway. This ad highlights another key issue about AA: they aren’t unionized. They might brag about being made in America, but this is not synonymous with being made fairly by a company that respects and adequately supplies for their workers’ needs. Nowadays, being unionized does not guarantee this either. This Place with the Stuff is better than your average garment manufacturer. According to NPR, “Earning twice the California minimum wage, employees get subsidized lunches, subsidized health insurance, free on-site English classes and free bus tokens—even company bicycles to get to and from work.” And that doesn’t sound super bad.

Media or, uh, the media do bizarre things to our perceptions or ourselves, other people, and the world around us. There is something very provocative about AA advertisments; they have an essence of voyeurism, barely legal pornography, and an after taste of sexual exploitation. The young women in the AA advertisements embody what my sister calls Rape-Chic. Harsh. But, I think she’s describing the way all those women look totally vulnerable and somewhat defeated. They certainly don’t look unionized. I wonder what those ads would look like if they were unionized. Maybe they’d look no different. What if they were collectivized?!? Would an equitable relationship between the dude with the camera and the half-naked woman on the other side affect the resulting image?

An entirely different image that AA has been promoting of late is that of the illegal immigration. However, their take on the issue is predictably pro-immigrant and vaguely radical. The “Legalize LA” campaign may or may not be suggesting that immigration is a human right that should not be restricted, but they’re certainly saying something. And they’re probably convincing a few of their so-hip patrons to pay attention to that whole immigration thing. Unfortunately, the photo spread advertisements come across a lot stronger than the immigration “action plan.” Mixing politics with marketing is, at best, messy. At worst? It’s something like: Legalize LA ’cause those immigrant girls look so sexy in the solid jersey hot short, style # 8301.

* Well, if you’re stoked on having the young, articulate, not-white dude in the white house, in spite of his tired and centrist platform, you’ll likely be celebrating this evening. To paraphrase Chris Rock, this is a year for black people to wear suits. And since we’re talking politics, let’s make it a really boring navy blue suit, something très Beltway, eh? White folks can try to fake some cultural understanding by accessorizing their skirt suit with traditional African jewelry or replacing that white dress shirt with a Mos Def t-shirt (Def, BTW, says Obama is better looking that McCain, in case you hadn’t noticed).

* McCain winning is gonna feel kinda dirty. Their after party will suck and if you can’t afford the Neiman Marcus shopping spree, well, you know, I don’t know why I’m even talking about this. If McCain wins, go home, put on your sweat pants get drunk by yourself. The hang over will feel better than sobriety.

* And if you didn’t vote, or you voted for someone else, or you are generally appalled by the system, and you think it particularly matters who keeps us in Iraq and who doesn’t do shit about domestic capital flight, declining social services and the deplorable state of education in This Great Nation, then I suggest you recycle that outfit you wore to protest the DNC and/or RNC. You know, that black one that was kinda messy with the balaclava. It looked almost working-class and totally hopeless. You can really take this outfit from day to night with a classy vintage gas mask and a crow bar.

“Women are often told to be extra careful and take precautions when going out at night. In some parts of the world, even today, women are not allowed out at night. So when women struggle for freedom, we must start at the beginning by fighting for freedom of movement, which we have not had and we do not have. We must recognize that freedom is a precondition for anything else. It comes before freedom of speech in importance because without it freedom of speech cannot exist.”
–Andrea Dworkin, radical feminist activist and Take Back the Night

I wholeheartedly agree with this statement–not to imply that I agree with the entire body of Dworkin’s writings. Rights are not to be received but to be taken. Just as the “Night” must be taken, so must the mini skirt be worn. I suggest something high-waisted and not too tight. Also, avoid those hideous cut-off denim minis with raw edges; they don’t look good on anyone. If we lack the option to safely wear a mini skirt, women of the Western world are little better off than women in present-day Afghanistan, wearing their oppression in burqa form. Yeah, I said it and it’s not an exaggeration. Let’s do a little Compare-And-Contrast.

The dirty little secret of sexist thinking is that clothing has very little do do with the causes of violence against women or misogyny in general. In fact, it’s a tool, a justification for abuse, and something of a cattle prod to keep us in line. Through the lens of Judeo-Christian culture, the conditions of women in some Muslim countries are extreme, degrading, and intolerable. Through the same lens, the self-imposed conditions of Muslim women in some European countries is similarly unacceptable, but that’s a different story. (Netherlands , France). However, both the woman in the mini shirt and the woman in the burqa earn a certain type of treatment and a specific perception (read: stereotype) from their native society and the global community. Neither is particularly posi. We typically perceive the first as too empowered for her own good and the other as strictly oppressed and imprisoned within her own garments.

Anyone who suffered through Catholic school knows the tragedy of a dress code. The required wearing of a confining garment enforced by violence is infinitely more despicable. But think about that. Which society is forcing a dress code on women by threat of violence? It is certainly the society in which a woman might be beaten for revealing her hair or her face, but isn’t it also our own in which rape and other violence are justified by the victim’s outfit? The most well publicized case was the rape of a young woman in Italy in the late 1990′s which was successfully justified because the perp could not possibly have forced her out of her tight jeans if she were struggling against him. Unfortunately, this is not a unique incident. Numerous sexual harassment and assault cases have been settled in favor of the violator because the victim was wearing one of those trashy, overtly sexual t-shirts that say “slut” or something. I obviously don’t support the wearing of these garments on aesthetic grounds, but poor taste should not be punishable by groping.

We have several options before us. There’s the “boys will be boys” approach: we can take responsibility for the possibility that someone else will violate us and dress as asexually as possible. Or we can do the “faith in humanity” thing in which we challenge the people around us to act right despite their uncontrollable urges for non-consensual sexual activity. As for the femme feminists of the world, we can start by taking our freedom. Walking by ourselves at night will not become safe if we always take a male chaperon with us. Neither will we overcome the perverse concept of deserved violence by toeing the line of so-called appropriate dress and behavior. It might seem like I’m suggesting the use of mini skirts to combat violence and verbal abuse of women. Actually, I am. But I’m not talking about whatever-wave feminism and the empowerment-through-sexiness model. No, I think mini-shirt wearing occupies the same roll as beautiful women with armpit or leg hair. When a feminist makes an aesthetic choice that bucks conformity, it’s a big “fuck you”. To who? To everyone. To my mother who fears the response my outfit might elicit. To the dudes who think we’re asking for it. To the majority of mini skirt wearers who fear to call themselves feminists. And so on.

Plus, they’re hot.