OMG Abercrombie, WTF?
I don't usually write this blog from an emotional perspective, but I admit it, this time I'm mad. By now you've probably heard about the fire storm over Abercrombie & Fitch, the trendy children's clothier, offering little girls push up bikinis. Just in case you haven't, you can view the story from Good Morning America here.
In a nutshell, Abercrombie decided, in its infinite, and always tasteful, wisdom, that it would be okay to sell padded string bikinis to seven and eight year old little girls. Let's just state clearly for the record, in case anyone was wondering, that Abercrombie is wrong. It is not okay to sell body altering swim wear to little kids, especially not string bikinis designed to make little girls' boobs look bigger! Abercrombie did change the name of the product from "push-up" to something less descriptive because of the consumer outrage, but the bikinis are still available for sale.
Now, here is why I'm really mad on this one. This is my personal blog and I don't speak on behalf of Go Daddy here, but we do have a 24/7 Network Abuse team who make it their business to remove images of small kids being photographed in sexually compromising positions. Those images, sadly, often begin with little girls in lingerie and bikinis. It's usually just a matter of time before the bikinis come off and these little girls go from being exploited to being abused. And, that is not okay. Not with me and not with any of the hard working and diligent people I have working for me to rid the Internet of this filth.
So, Abercrombie, changing the name of the product is not enough. Stop selling that crap.
If I were a seven year old girl, I might say something like: OMG Abercrombie, WTF?
In a nutshell, Abercrombie decided, in its infinite, and always tasteful, wisdom, that it would be okay to sell padded string bikinis to seven and eight year old little girls. Let's just state clearly for the record, in case anyone was wondering, that Abercrombie is wrong. It is not okay to sell body altering swim wear to little kids, especially not string bikinis designed to make little girls' boobs look bigger! Abercrombie did change the name of the product from "push-up" to something less descriptive because of the consumer outrage, but the bikinis are still available for sale.
Now, here is why I'm really mad on this one. This is my personal blog and I don't speak on behalf of Go Daddy here, but we do have a 24/7 Network Abuse team who make it their business to remove images of small kids being photographed in sexually compromising positions. Those images, sadly, often begin with little girls in lingerie and bikinis. It's usually just a matter of time before the bikinis come off and these little girls go from being exploited to being abused. And, that is not okay. Not with me and not with any of the hard working and diligent people I have working for me to rid the Internet of this filth.
So, Abercrombie, changing the name of the product is not enough. Stop selling that crap.
If I were a seven year old girl, I might say something like: OMG Abercrombie, WTF?
Here here! Nice article.
Reply to this
Thanks, Adrian. And, thanks for what you do every day to address the problem of online child abuse.
Reply to this
60,000 new images of child exploitation a month. Thank you Abercrombie for helping to push that envelope. Their Marketing Department needs to have their heads checked.
Reply to this
Of all the people out there, you are one of the most faithful in working to get rid of child abuse online. We salute you and admire your efforts. Don't let this Abercrombie crap discourage you.
Reply to this
Thank you. Coming from you this really means a lot to me.
Reply to this
Words can not describe how disgusted this makes me.
Reply to this
Words cannot describe what happens to a little girl when she is abused for the benefit of adult profit. Let's stay ever vigilant and ensure we help as may little girls as we can.
Reply to this
Abercrombie's conduct is beyond reprehensible. The only thing they will understand is if consumers stop patronizing the store. Unfortunately, they posted a pretty decent profit in Q4 2010. May they experience a drastic downtown in Q2 2011 because of this sick marketing campaign.
Reply to this
You're right, of course. Unless and until they feel the pressure to their bottom line, they will not stop exploiting young children for their own profit. Let''s hope parents around the globe will decide they've finally had enough.
Reply to this
So you can be outraged by this company, but YOU work for a company where the CEO kills elephants in Africa, calls it "rewarding," and that's okay with you?!
Unless you didn't know about it yet. What's your thoughts on this?
Reply to this
Thanks, David. Although this is my personal blog, and it does not express the official position of Go Daddy, I will say it's hard to understand how Mr Parsons' activities helping poor villagers in Zimbabwe fight rogue elephants relates to Abercrombie's decision to sell bikinis designed to sexualize young girls. The two things seem completely inapposite.
Reply to this
How can compare a child being exploited to some one who hunts as both humans and animals have done since the beginning of time. Take a history class! "Is that ok?" you ask... I like how you bring up something non related to the post to side step the conversation. You are pathetic.
Reply to this
"helping poor villagers in Zimbabwe fight rogue elephants"
Yes, you have a job with this evil guy, so of course you don't want to risk that. You know it's wrong. You're a hypocrite calling out a company for doing something wrong, but refuse to denounce the evil in your own company. Typical. You've sold your soul.
Reply to this
You are confused by the facts! Read the entire story on the elephants! The elephants were killing people/ children!!! This "evil" guy saved a few lives.. one is a brother of a close friend so I do know the entire story. By the way, who do you work for? I bet there are a few things shady or not up to moral "standards" where you collect your check! Are you a child pornographer that is bent out of shape because of this blog? Seams like you are sore about something more that A&F in the lime light. So what is your story?
Reply to this
The FACT is, he didn't go there to "help" anyone. He likes killing things, period. He uses this "help" excuse to do it. Anyone who enjoys killing things is mentally disturbed, or in this case, just plain evil. Calling me a "child pornographer" won't deflect the facts. The reason I came to this blog is that the woman here works for Bob Parsons, and I found it hypocritical for her to complain about the "evil" of one company, but defends the evil in her own ranks. We know why. She can't say bad of him, he's the boss. Even people working for Hitler had to readjust their morals and logic to keep their positions. Sickening.
Reply to this
Okay, David, you have said your peace. While neither my personal blog nor Mr Parsons' vacation activities are sanctioned or sponsored by Go Daddy, I have posted your comments, unedited, in support of your right to express yourself. We welcome all types of feedback here at the Rudy Syndrome.
For the record, no one called you a child pornographer. Don't be ridiculous. And, you are also wrong on the facts about Mr Parsons' trip to Zimbabwe. Maybe next year, you can go with him and see the extreme poverty and starvation first hand. In the meantime, how about send a few passionate emails to Abercrombie about how wrong it is to sell padded bikinis to seven year olds. If your emails are as devoted as your posts here, you may just move them to remove the swim wear from their web site.
Thanks for taking time to engage,
AttyJones
Reply to this
Real classy.
Hijack a personal blog post about child exploitation to further your point of a view on a completely separate issue.
Reply to this
The "child modeling" site investigations are, in many cases, more disturbing for me than the CP investigations, because I know what is likely the next step for the children in the images. Isn't it just wonderful that A&F is providing a tool for these individuals to use in their "artistic photoshoots"?
I never liked A&F anyway, now I have a more solid reason dislike the company. Besides, when walking by the storefront, it smells like teen angst.
Reply to this
Thanks for proving good insight from someone who knows the truth about these sites, Jeremiah.
Appreciate the post,
AttyJones
Reply to this
Thanks, Christine, for what you and all your colleagues at Go Daddy do to stop the proliferation of child pornography. These AF "clothes" play into the exploitation and sexualization of young girls.
Reply to this
Thanks, Anne. I take it seriously, as you know, and I wish Abercrombie would, too.
Appreciate the post,
AttyJones
Reply to this
While I don't really like A&F I find it reprehensible that caring parents would buy the stuff! If parents would "start a movement against it" and not feed it - it wouldn't survive!
No one has to buy it! Guess freedom of speech allows them to advertise>
Reply to this
Faith, there is no doubt Abercrombie is well within their legal rights to produce and sell sexy swim suits for little girls. But, as you point out, they should do the right thing and choose not to do it voluntarily. Parents are a key to solving this problem as well: if people with money don't buy the product, the seller will stop selling it.
Appreciate the post,
AttyJones
Reply to this
This is a short and to the point post that I commend highly. The "sexualization" of prepubescent children in western society is something we need to address without hysteria. It is a genuine concern for most right thinking adults whether parents or not.
AF, while not the only company that does it, is symptomatic of a world that is personified in the likes of Paris Hilton, Brittney Spears and other "idols" and where children are encouraged to grow up and become "sexy" as quickly as possible. AF serve that created market and it is a classic case of "green is green".
Law Enforcement are flooded with self taken naked images and movies of children (often preteen) who post pictures of themselves in poses and postures that seek to emulate what they see their role models doing, including acts copied from Paris Hiltons "stolen home movie". This material then enters Internet shadowland where it is exchanged, swapped and sold alongside Child Abuse Material. (aka Child Pornography)
Clothing such as this has two results:
1. It encourages the notion of "sexiness" amongst these children and they don't really understand the far reaching implications of their actions.
2. It reinforces the cognitive distortions that drive people with a predisposition to have sex with children to attempt to or actually offend. It has parallels with the rapist arguing that the woman was asking for it because she wore a short skirt.
Once again, a good post and refreshing to see it from an employee of an Internet company who can do so much to combat the exploitation of children in all its forms.
M
disclosure: I am a law enforcement officer who works in this field.
Reply to this
M, thank you so much for your thoughtful and thorough response. We work closely with, and admire, law enforcement officers who work daily to protect children from all sorts of evil, including the kind found online. We'll continue to do our part to help make the Internet a better and safer place for children. But, as you point out, we need the help of parents and the community to ensure the greatest impact.
Thanks for the post,
AttyJones
Reply to this