Melvin Moten Jr wrote:

Actually, I've been sexually harrassed on a job before [by a male actually].  I got up and walked out, simple as that...And had a new job within 24 hours.  And woe betide anyone who thinks of harrassing one of my sisters, because that would be @ss kicking call for sure.

Let me be even more blunt:  These "victims" you're talking about aren't children kidnapped and forced to mine blood diamonds or illiterate young women sold into sex slavery.  These are young, smart, hip, well-educated people [most likely from privilidged backgrounds] who are making a concious decision whether to stay or leave a job.  I can think of more deserving recipients of my sympathy, even if you can't.   I stand by my original position:  Dove is buying, the models and employees are selling [and probably getting better than market value too].  As Winston Churchill's favorite joke ends: 

"We've already established what you are madam, now we're just haggling over the price."

Amen Melvin!  If you don't like your work environment go elsewhere....working somewhere is a choice.

Susi wrote:
Amen Melvin!  If you don't like your work environment go elsewhere....working somewhere is a choice.

Theoretically, sure. But the thing is, if there weren't laws against this kind of thing, if other companies saw that this kind of behaviour was condoned and considered acceptable, what's to stop them from following suit? What if it got to the point where no, you couldn't "just work somewhere else," where your options were to put up with being harassed or be unemployed? Sure, it's an unlikely scenario, but things like this are why sexual harassment guidelines exist. Think about it this way: I love my job. If my boss suddenly decided to start sexually harassing me, I would be very upset, and moreso if the only solution people gave me was to quit. Why should I have to give up a job that I otherwise love just because one person can't keep it in his pants and act like an adult? Why should the woman be the one who loses? That is encouraging a "victim mentality" - rather than stand up for yourself and sue the bastard, you should just give up and leave and let him get away with it. No, thank you.

And the Churchill joke in this context is puzzling, since the implication is apparently that these employees would have no problem with being harassed if they were being paid more. Huh?

Susi wrote:
There should be no government control or regulation of corporate policies.  Read Atlas Shrugged and get back to me:-)

I have, and thoroughly disagreed with it. In fact, I find that I really can't take people seriously once they start using Rand to support their arguments. When her ideals are the actual basis of any form of government and not some capitalist/libertarian pipe dream, you get back to me.

Catriona wrote:

I have, and thoroughly disagreed with it. In fact, I find that I really can't take people seriously once they start using Rand to support their arguments. When her ideals are the actual basis of any form of government and not some capitalist/libertarian pipe dream, you get back to me.

Oh, I'm so hurt that you don't take me seriously...lol.

Catriona wrote:
What if it got to the point where no, you couldn't "just work somewhere else," where your options were to put up with being harassed or be unemployed? Sure, it's an unlikely scenario

So, we're supposed to make our decisions about where to work and how to deal with negative workplace conditions based on a concept that you admit isn't real?  This is the sort of disconnected "idealism" that has crippled feminism in particular and most liberal causes in general.  We'll never empower anyone as long as we keep trying to "child proof" the world.

Catriona wrote:
Why should I have to give up a job that I otherwise love just because one person can't keep it in his pants and act like an adult?

Because it's his company and he can run it the way he likes.  If you don't like it then start your own company.

Catriona wrote:
Why should the woman be the one who loses? That is encouraging a "victim mentality" - rather than stand up for yourself and sue the bastard, you should just give up and leave and let him get away with it. No, thank you.

As I said earlier, if the people working for this guy are so helpless then you hire a lawyer and fight for them..Good luck with that.

Catriona wrote:
And the Churchill joke in this context is puzzling, since the implication is apparently that these employees would have no problem with being harassed if they were being paid more. Huh?

Obviously they're already okay with being "harrassed" since they aren't quitting in droves.  I'm willing to bet that American Apparel's personel director has a roomful of applications from people trying to get in on the action, even though everyone seems to know what goes on there.

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:
So why don't you go to the company and educate them all...since you seem to have it all figured out?  Sheesh. 

If they're all as dumb and useless as you seem to think [hippie girl elitism always kills me] then why worry about them at all?  Line 'em up and let Dove have at 'em I say.  I honestly have better things to worry about than this guy or the people who willingly go to work for him.  You should too.

Since you chose to ignore most of my points in shooting your untrue and nonsensical description of people you've never met down, I will choose to ignore most of your responce and simply ask:  Do you mean people sill think I'm a hippie?  :0/. 
..And based on that question you should be able to tell that, sure, I have better things to worry about.  But it does bother me when people think it's totally fine for people to be exploited and abused.

Wynd Mulysa wrote:
But it does bother me when people think it's totally fine for people to be exploited and abused.

You mean exploited and abused by choice.  The fact remains that nobody is forcing them to stay.  When you have proof that employees are chained to desks or locked in basements get back to me.

Marko Cecic-Karuzic wrote:
By the way, since this is a photo and modelling-oriented site, has anybody noticed that American Apparel's general marketing concept is a fairly blatant rip-off (albeit a pretty good one) of Sisley, Energie, Diesel, etc... Mostly Italian streetwear labels of roughly similar price range?

That's how it is in showbiz -- amateurs borrow...professionals steal.

Catriona wrote:
...But the thing is, if there weren't laws against this kind of thing, if other companies saw that this kind of behaviour was condoned and considered acceptable, what's to stop them from following suit? What if it got to the point where no, you couldn't "just work somewhere else," where your options were to put up with being harassed or be unemployed? ...Why should I have to give up a job that I otherwise love just because one person can't keep it in his pants and act like an adult? Why should the woman be the one who loses? That is encouraging a "victim mentality" - rather than stand up for yourself and sue the bastard, you should just give up and leave and let him get away with it. No, thank you.

Right on, my sister, right on!

Seriously though, what is it with otherwise seemingly educated and enlightened people who can't recall that women's freedom of choice is a relatively new phenomenon.  Twenty-five to thirty years ago, sexual harrassment in business would've been the norm, and all you could do was quit and find a new job.  No one is saying that these women are being "chained to their desks," but in a way their psyche and emotional well-being are taking the beating.  So she (hypothetical hot AA employee) decides that all the leers and grabby-grabby hands are just NOT cool anymore, she's just supposed to quit?  And then what?  Hope that the next place doesn't have an office sexpot on the loose there too?  That would be a great interview question to ask your next prospective employers .  Because after all, the government shouldn't be allowed to define equality in the workplace, right?

I've known a few younger women who were more than cool with a job regardless of the sexual harrassment they had to put up with, because it was a "cool job," or the pay/experience/schedule was great.  And you know what, after a few years some (not all) of these chicks became some seriously jaded women.  They thought of sex as a commodity to bring to the table, even when it might them harm personally and professionally.  Why you may ask?  Because, hey, if hitting it with the boss got them so far before, what could it get them this time?

MakeupNV wrote:
They thought of sex as a commodity to bring to the table, even when it might them harm personally and professionally.  Why you may ask?  Because, hey, if hitting it with the boss got them so far before, what could it get them this time?

I keep forgetting that the fashion industry has nothing to do with sexuality.  My bad.

*end sarcasm*

Marko Cecic-Karuzic wrote:
WAAAAIT a second... Who the fuck ever said fashion or fashion marketing have nothing to do with sexuality??????

They don't.  Didn't you get the memo?  The fashion industry is a pure hearted enterprise totally uncorrupted by sexuality or sexual thoughts.  It's participants are pure of heart and innocent as newborn kittens.  Your thinking otherwise is obvious proof that you are nothing but a dirty, nasty man, a pervert and probably a predator...Unlike the fashion industry and it's inhabitants who are much blessed by god for their purity.

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:
They don't.  Didn't you get the memo?  The fashion industry is a pure hearted enterprise totally uncorrupted by sexuality or sexual thoughts.  It's participants are pure of heart and innocent as newborn kittens.  Your thinking otherwise is obvious proof that you are nothing but a dirty, nasty man, a pervert and probably a predator...Unlike the fashion industry and it's inhabitants who are much blessed by god for their purity.

Because, of course, there is NO DIFFERENCE between using suggestive imagery in your advertising and thinking it's totally okay to masturbate in front of your employees. And if you don't think that's okay, you must be some sex-hating Puritan. Duh!

Catriona wrote:

Because, of course, there is NO DIFFERENCE between using suggestive imagery in your advertising and thinking it's totally okay to masturbate in front of your employees. And if you don't think that's okay, you must be some sex-hating Puritan. Duh!

It must be his Jedi mind tricks that make all those poor deluded employees keep coming to work every day.

Come to think of it, most of the models and stylists around here DO seem to be sex-hating puritans, but that's neither here nor there.

Catriona wrote:

Because, of course, there is NO DIFFERENCE between using suggestive imagery in your advertising and thinking it's totally okay to masturbate in front of your employees. And if you don't think that's okay, you must be some sex-hating Puritan. Duh!

I can see hundreds of guys are now sending in their resumes in hopes of being able to work under you (pun intended).

Christopher Bush wrote:

it's tricky, shyly.  this is very important, though.  my favorite photographers (juergen teller, helmut newton, etc) would likely be called "gwc" by the much of the internet peeps.  they do/did not go around flaunting their lighting skills, as they understand that would not make for interesting photos.

there is a huge difference between terry richardson, juergen teller, or helmut newton,   and a "gwc" from this site!  terry knows exactly what he's doing, but most around here can only see the technical attributes of his photos.  technicians are not usually the best at creating compelling imagery (although mastery of technique is important, whether or not it's used is a different question).  helmut newton is an easy example as most would agree that his imagery is extremely compelling, but he did not schlep around a bunch of equipment at all.  often he merely used an on-camera flash.  his later color work is actually quite simlar in its *surface appearance* to the "snapshot aesthetic" of people like terry richardson.

I couldn't have said it any better!  Helmut Newton will always be my hero.  His photographs may look like a scene in which the viewer has just "walked in on" - but Herr Newton thought each of his photographs out well in advance. 

With Mr. Richardson he creates scenarios where wild sex is possible (i.e. interviewing models for their sexual proclivities, etc. etc.) and he knows what he wants to see and preserve on film.

It's that mental process that goes beyond the mere technical.  It's what separates Mr. Richardson and Herrn Newton und Teller from both the rank amateur and the technocrat.

JAY carreon
PHOTOGRAPHER

MakeupNV wrote:

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:
I'm not condoning anything.  I'm merely stating that there are always choices.  We all make them, every day.  If people have a problem dealing with those choices, then perhaps we really DO need the government to tell us what we can see, where we can go and who we can marry...

Dude, I take it you didn't see the movie "North Country," then-- right?  This situation could affect men or women, but if your mom, sister, girlfriend, or whatever came home pissed one day because she had to chose between getting on her knees for the boss or walking off of her job, you really think that you'd be as objective as "...there are always choices?"  Yeah, there are choices but an environment like this doesn't allow for you to NOT be in the mood to hook up on the fly, you CAN'T have days where you just want to do your job and go home.  Why not?  Why, because THAT WOULD BE AGAINST COMPANY POLICY, official or unofficial.  WTF!! 

Even escorts, strippers, and porn stars just want to go to work without some boss/pimp grabbin' at them 24/7.  Yo.

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:

Actually, I've been sexually harrassed on a job before [by a male actually].  I got up and walked out, simple as that...And had a new job within 24 hours.  And woe betide anyone who thinks of harrassing one of my sisters, because that would be @ss kicking call for sure.

Let me be even more blunt:  These "victims" you're talking about aren't children kidnapped and forced to mine blood diamonds or illiterate young women sold into sex slavery.  These are young, smart, hip, well-educated people [most likely from privilidged backgrounds] who are making a concious decision whether to stay or leave a job.  I can think of more deserving recipients of my sympathy, even if you can't.   I stand by my original position:  Dove is buying, the models and employees are selling [and probably getting better than market value too].  As Winston Churchill's favorite joke ends: 

"We've already established what you are madam, now we're just haggling over the price."

I'm sorry Melvin, but I have to agree with MakeupNV and the others on this. 

"And woe betide anyone who thinks of harrassing one of my sisters, because that would be @ss kicking call for sure."

Really now?  What if this particular employer has a gun - what if he's got his own private army?  No one should be forced to choose between being unemployed and testing the limits of their "gag reflex".  This is one of the exploitative things that the labor laws are designed to curtail.

Not everyone has as good a range of choices as you do, Melvin.  The labor laws are designed to protect them.

JAY carreon
PHOTOGRAPHER