The story, as originally broken by Fashionista: A clothing company, in an anti-cyberbullying initiative (apparently it is a REVELATION that cyberbullying is wrong!), partnered with celebrities and “influencers” (again, please, no) to put cruel online comments received by said celebrities and “influencers” on sweatshirts. This would serve to educate us all that mean comments are mean.

However, an image of one of the sweatshirts was leaked!

Uh, OK

Apparently the quote was something said by a cyberbully to plus-size model Paloma Elsesser. This fact, however, is not clear from an image of a skinny girl wearing a shirt with an anti-fat-girl quote on it. Then LPA, the company that made the shirt, apologized REALLY, REALLY BADLY!

“The prematurely released images featured on Revolve.com was [sic] not only included without context of the overall campaign but regrettably featured one of the pieces on a model who’s [sic] size was not reflective of the piece’s commentary on body positivity,” the statement reads. “We at Revolve sincerely apologize to all those involved — particularly Lena, Emily, Cara, Suki and Paloma — our loyal customers, and the community as a whole for this error.”

Run through the SorryWatch translator (beep boop boop boop boop):

“Prematurely released” NOT OUR FAULT “on Revolve.com” BLAME THE RETAILER THAT LEAKED THE IMAGE, NOT US “without context” AGAIN, THAT IS REVOLVE, R-E-V-O-L-V-E, NOT US “sincerely apologize to all those involved — particularly [famous people]” OUR PRIMARY CONCERN IS THE FAMOUS PEOPLE “our loyal customers, and the community” FIRST THE FAMOUS PEOPLE, THEN THE PEOPLE WHO GIVE US MONEY, AND LAST/LEAST, THE REST OF YOU “for this error” DID WE MENTION BLAME REVOLVE NOT US BLAME REVOLVE NOT US

SorryWatch understands spinning and capitalism, but it is imperative that corporations and people (not synonymous, Mitt) pause and THINK before they apologize. Because knee-jerk “omigod make this bad feeling/bad publicity STOP” apologies are rarely good apologies.

LPA later came out with a slightly better apology that still blames Revolve.

Still not great!

Here again, sucking up to the celebrity comes before apologizing to the public. But would the campaign miraculously become unproblematic if the sweatshirt had been shown on Lena Dunham instead of on a skinny model? (Please note: This is the first time “Lena Dunham” and “unproblematic” have ever been used in the same sentence.) Lena Dunham may not be a size o, but she’s not fat. Even the model who received the online insult, Paloma Elsesser, is fat by skinny-model standards but not by actual-American-woman standards. According to her agency, her measurements are 39-42-44, which means she’s between a size 10 and 12 in US sizes. The average American woman is a size 14. 

But LPA does not manufacture plus sizes. Its largest size, XL (43-35.5-45.5), would likely fit someone who’s a 14 or 16. The retailer, Resolve — not to pile on or anything after LPA was all blame-y — does not even carry a size XL. Its largest size, L, is an 8-10. Presumably they’d be reaching WAAAAY outside their comfort zone, carrying this manatee-esque sweatshirt that comes in an XL! They would have had to call their web designer to add an XL button! Presumably they agreed to carry the hideous huge XL sweatshirt because it was for charity, so they could hold their tiny noses and suck up the visceral horror.

Upshot: The fashion industry is frequently oblivious to its own biases. If you don’t make a sweatshirt about fat that won’t fit a fat girl, don’t make the sweatshirt. THAT, not the fact that you showed the sweatshirt on a size S instead of a size M (probably Lena’s size) or size L (probably Paloma’s size) is what warrants an apology.

And sadly, both LPA and Resolve hung Elsesser, the model who’d received the insult, out to dry. She actually sounds like a smart, self-aware, socially conscious person who is insightful about sizeism. (It’s not her fault that plus models are not actually plus size; girl’s gotta work, she’s gorgeous, and my hope is that she didn’t know the shirt would only be available in straight sizes.) But it seems that no one apologized to her first thing, which should have been both companies’ first step. She had to find out about the kerfuffle from someone (who seems to be an “influencer”!) on Instagram:

 

 

 

 

 

 

View this post on Instagram

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I heard back from @palomija and she told me she is MORTIFIED about how this quote has been used, and is asking for her quote to be pulled • The brand @lpa responded and they have got @revolve to take down the shots – this is our convo. Problematic marketing = a problem with diversity in the work place. This is still incredibly problematic and an awful attempt at ‘claiming back’ toxic narratives because (in my opinion) it just gives them power by putting them back into the world and at a £162 price tag. The designs went up to XL, so the women who this tee is supposed to ‘empower’ probably wouldn’t even fit into one. But at least we got the pics taken down…Ugh.

A post shared by FLOSS (@florencegiven) on Sep 12, 2018 at 8:23am PDT

Believe it or not, I’m not gonna make fun of the notion of a $168 sweatshirt. Capitalism. Charity. Whatevs. Though even if we’d known the cyberbullying-campaign It-Girls-raising-money-for-charity backstory, who the hell, fat or skinny, would wear this shirt? (Even if it WERE available in plus sizes?)

All this happened on Wednesday. Finally, today, Friday, Resolve apologized.

Soooomething is missing from this apology…

Do not apologize for “hurting and offending” us. Apologize for WHAT YOU DID. Not our feelings. Even worse, saying that the shirt was “not shot on an appropriate model” does not address the elephant [sic] in the room: YOU DON’T MAKE CLOTHING FOR ACTUAL FAT PEOPLE. There’s no way for the shirt to be taken as anything but snark at fat people if only thin people can wear it. The lack of self-awareness among most straight-size fashion people is really something.

It’s good that Revolve is making a donation to the organization that the shirt was supposed to help, Girls Write Now. (It’s a great org, btw.) Also good that they named the amount, unlike LPA. (Watch me play you jerks against each other! Can we shame LPA into naming an amount?)

Feel free to buy a sweatshirt (regular or plus-size, as you wish) and write BULLYING IS MEAN on it with a Sharpie. (You could also just wear it as is?) Then make your own donation to Girls Write Now. Le voila!

Yay!

Urban Outfitters sells some “vintage” clothes as well as new. Used clothes. Mostly shirts from college teams, schools, or amusingly named organizations. Cobleskill Football – $129. Iowa State University – $129. Providence College Hockey Camp – $149. Texas Int’l Airlines – $139. They’re overpriced, possibly condescending, and save you the trouble of going to a thrift store. They also have some highly distressed jeans/overalls. $650 for a “Vintage French Repaired Overall.” (So distressed it’s practically in crisis, but someone has snatched it up.)

Were you not cautioned about the edgy?

Also – too late to buy this, or even find it on their site – a Kent State University sweatshirt. Unlike the others it’s unevenly stained and mottled with red. Unlike the others, it has half a dozen round dark red spots and holes over where a person’s heart might be.

I mentioned the Kent State University logo, didn’t I? Kent State, where in 1970 13 students were shot, four them killed, when Ohio National Guard troops opened fire? That Kent State.

People thought that offering an apparent Kent State massacre victim’s garment was horrible and in the worst of taste. They said so. Kent State officials were upset too. Dean Kahler, who was paralyzed in the 1970 shootings, said “Urban Outfitters continues to perpetuate a low standard of ethics.” Urban Outfitter took down the picture, and issued this apology:

Urban Outfitters sincerely apologizes for any offense our Vintage Kent State Sweatshirt may have caused. It was never our intention to allude to the tragic events that took place at Kent State in 1970 and we are extremely saddened that this item was perceived as such. The one-of-a-kind item was purchased as part of our sun-faded vintage collection. There is no blood on this shirt nor has this item been altered in any way. The red stains are discoloration from the original shade of the shirt and the holes are from natural wear and fray. Again, we deeply regret that this item was perceived negatively and we have removed it immediately from our website to avoid further upset.

Bah. What part of that do I believe? I do believe that’s not real blood, and that this is not a death garment. I believe they wish they hadn’t put it up.

Photo by John Paul Filo.

But I am skeptical that the markings are “natural discoloration” and “natural wear and fray.” I own some fairly grotty old garments and none of them have developed bullet holes.

I don’t think Urban Outfitters altered the shirt to create the markings. That’s too much effort for a $129 item. Probably someone other than Urban Outfitters thought it would be hilarious to mock up a death sweat shirt. Maybe they realized their mistake, and released the shirt into the sea of used clothing out there. Urban Outfitters fished it out.

Did they offer it unknowingly? Unlikely, given that the other vintage” shirts offered for sale don’t have that kind of staining/spotting/fray. I think it was their “intention to allude to the tragic events that took place at Kent State.”

Urban Outfitters says that didn’t happen, and the evil is all in the eye of the beholder. I call that despicable blame-shifting.

But remember, they “are extremely saddened that this item was perceived as such.”

Corporate day of mourning! Print up some shirts!

On June 14th Horizon Science Academy, a charter school in Lorain, OH, issued a new dress code for its 500 students in kindergarten to 10^th grade. The kids wear uniforms, but a dress code is still needed.

Forget about Malia’s and Sasha’s hair, what has the President got on his head?

It contained provisions that didn’t surprise anyone (no tattoos, pants can’t be baggy), provisions that impressed with the endless creativity of youth (no fake glasses, no graffiti on the uniform), and the following upsetting sentence:

“Afro-puffs and small twisted braids, with our [sic] without rubber bands are NOT permitted.”

Ooh.

People got upset. It looked like a racist policy directed at common hairstyles for unprocessed African-American hair. A policy which would make life difficult for parents trying to send kids out looking presentable. As Cipriana of Urban Bush Babes wrote, “As a child who wore afro puffs and braids… these styles were absolutely essential in having a life that was not consumed by hair, especially since I am a twin.”

Nancy Redd, of HuffPost Live, said “If I wasn’t allowed to wear braids or Afro-puffs when I was a kid my mom would have had to shave my whole head off.”

Leila Noelliste at Black Girl Long Hair (BGLH) wrote that “small twisted braids” probably means box braids, a “style that black girls have worn for generations. Afro-puffs are essentially the black version of the ponytail…, yet the rules do not have a ban on ponytails for students of other ethnicities.” (Her post includes charming photos of these styles.)

Also, no bringing crabs to school.

“Our hair is viewed as radical, funky or unruly in its natural state, and restrictions are sometimes placed on us in academic and professional settings that do not extend to our non-black counterparts.”

What was the school thinking?

A Daily Kos writer guessed that those who made the policy “just weren’t thinking.” And perhaps to people in the head office of the charter school chain “natural hair suggests all sorts of negative stereotypes.” (The chain is Concept Schools, with 31 charter schools in the Midwest.)

Urban Bush Babes wrote of “blatant sentiments expressed” in this policy about hair texture. “Incredible this is still even an issue that parents, children and adults still have to deal with today!”

I wondered if it had something to do with fear of gangs. But for such young kids?

Horizon promptly sent out a letter of apology:

Recently, our school sent home a draft copy of the dress code for the 2013-2014 school year. In the dress code information packet, a statement was made about not allowing a certain hairstyle. This information has offended many people and by no means did we have any intention of creating bias towards any of our students. We truly apologize for this mistake and want to thank everyone for their feedback about the information in our handbook.

Furthermore, we are taking the matter seriously and again apologize for any offense it may have caused. We are currently taking the necessary steps to correct the information and to prevent this from ever happening again. We will be sending the final updated version of our dress code as soon as possible.

Huh. Prompt, and taking responsibility for their mistake – but not saying what the mistake was. Was it thinking that box braids and Afro-puffs were unruly? Low-class? Political? This is an example of an apology that cries for explanation.

In search of enlightenment I watched a spectacularly crappy/fubar-plagued half-hour video on HuffPost Live, so you won’t need to. The best-informed guest was James Knight, who’s on Horizon’s advisory board and has 4 sons at the school. He had barely gotten as far as saying it was a misunderstanding (yeah yeah, don’t they always say that?) when the connection froze. Host Nancy Redd and her other 3 guests spent 25 minutes discussing the obnoxiousness of banning Afro-puffs and small braids, the terrible message that sends to little black girls, etc. before the link to Knight was fixed.

He said they’d made great points, but it really was a misunderstanding. “It had nothing to do with young African-American ladies. It was really more so addressing young African-American men here at the school.”

What!?! Yes. The whole deal seems to have been directed at “a couple young gentlemen here in the middle school. One part of the policy is that students have their shirts tucked in.” Horizon Science Academy aims for “a certain type of college prep culture here, and we just wanted the young men to be well-groomed. But the school made a mistake, and for that we’re very apologetic.”

If you look at the dress code with the upsetting rule (reproduced on BGLH), the previous rule says, “Hair is not to touch the collar of shirt – may be asked to cut it if administration deems it necessary (Boys only).” They forgot to write “Boys only” on the no-Afro-puffs/braids rule.

Nobelist Toni Morrison is a native of Lorain. Would those braids at the back be acceptable if she attended Horizon Science Academy? Maybe, unless she was a young gentleman in the middle school.

Jayson Bendik, Dean of Students at Horizon, was kind enough to talk on the phone about this flap. He confirmed that the rule was never meant to apply to girls. It came up because of a couple of boys in the middle school. “One of the problems we had that was recurring was unkempt hair,” he said. “There were two specific instances, one Caucasian, one African-American.” It had something to do with “pouffy” hair. “We put the absolutely wrong verbiage on it. It was an oversight, an absolute – it was NEVER any policy that tries to discriminate…. it was a mistake in word choice.”

No racism, no gang infiltration, just the eternal effort of school administrators to keep up with youthful self-expression.

So girls can wear Afro-puffs or braids. Can boys? “It just has to be well-groomed.”