though Jane mag isn't evidently interested in entering the digital age and thus I can't link to the story, the latest issue ("Summer"?) has an article on Dov Charney of American Apparel. The article is provocative and maybe even a bit disturbing from a certain perspective due to the way sex operates in the marketing of his product. In my understanding of the most dominant strain of feminist politics, his playful sexuality which seems to sort of blend sex and work (i.e. he has relationships at work with subordinates). He is also one of the chief photographers of these young girls. While the business is more ethical in terms of labor practices--and it is obvious that not *everyone* who works there is some sort of sleazy fodder for "the boss"--there is certainly a definite political issue with this.

On the other hand, much of the way I feel about this could be some lurking puritanical fantasy about the place for sex in society. It is interesting to consider the way Charney frames it in the article: "I think sex motivates everything [...] It motivates my work, too. You don't want something that's sexually driven, like panties, but then have them made in a horrible sweatshop. Like, I know my workers have a good time. They drink beer, they have relationships, they have girlfriends and boyfriends. [. . . .] It's fun to make money and pay people well."

First of, Charney is certainly not the only clothes manufacturer using sex to sell his wares, the only difference is that he is pointing to the fact that the places where these products are made--these products like the new Gap sundresses with those wildly sexual ads on TV--are made in very unsexy working conditions. Though there is certainly much to be unpacked in the way that sex is so wrapped up with consumerism, it is certainly an important appropriation (even if it is ultimately motivated by market concerns.) On the other hand, sex and consumption are certainly not all that foreign to one another and, according to Weber anyway, they would have been wrapped up with the protestant ethic in the early days of the most successful cultures of capitalism. That they have both become rampant (and interrelated) shouldn't come as a surprise, but it should make us ask how that pattern arose.

Second, the sort of appropriation that he is making--along with the various muses who work for him--seems to be picking up steam. Jane itself this month features a photo of Drew Barrymore with a t-shirt that says "politics is like sex: protect yourself...vote." Not sure how the metaphor (or is that a similie?) works, but this shirt is the subject of another article in the issue. Not very familair with the magazine itself, but it has its own thing going on which I don't really understand. In addition, sites such as http://www.beaverpower.com/ seem to be trying to tap into something like this. Their site features photos of young women wearing their t-shirts and proclaiming BEAVER POWER IS MAKING ENVIRONMENTALISM FUN AND SEXY! The site also features a quote by media and social critic Sut Jhally: "The imperative task for those who want to stress a different set of values is to make the struggle for social change fun and sexy."

To me this is a good idea--and one that is certainly not limited to the politics on the left. Last year when the Lysistrata movement was advocating an end to the war, a popular (in social location not in its mass appeal) right wing group of bloggers started a "f*ck for freedom" movement that was using the same appropriation of sex to sell the war on Iraq. Though I can't seem to find the original poster who created the graphics and started some of the movement, this particular blogger--who even got a couple of bones thrown by Sully at the time--was instrumental in spreading the word
http://www.asparagirl.com/blog/2003_03_02_archives.html
Likewise, aspiragirl launched another obscure artist into the public eye who used a similar sexualized image--this time also including a certain amount of matriachal imagery--to promote a sexy sort of violence that helped create a place for women who didn't identify with the "code pink" stance on the war--a movement which was certainly a bit old fashioned in its gender politics and was a bit overzealous in saying that all women have that peace and love stance. It, in fact, practically asked for this opposing movement.

So, to return to charney, it seems that, despite its blatent appeal to the market--and the fact that it seems the entire company runs in part on his charisma and thus would be hard to duplicate or expand too very far--american apparel is an important alternative to the much more exploitative practices of just about every other clothing manufacturer in the country. I would be interested hearing what a more feminist-minded person might say about this (which is not to say that I don't think about feminism, but that I don't think about it nearly enough to know what current trends of thought are--likewise with race studies, which would also have much to say about this particular case since most of his workforce is latino and many of the women (who also have key roles in running the company--even if they are also models for the ads) are non-white to one degree or another.) Finally, it will be interesting, now that the company is picking up steam, to see how they handle success and how they age: for instance, right now, many of these young women in charge of the company are models as well. As they get older and become both more embedded in the corporate structure and perhaps, less able to represent that young, carefree sexiness of their late 20s, will they simply hire more models giving them little stake in the company? I suppose it is something they will have to decide when they get there.