Voting with Your Dollar in Every Domain: Fashion, Vegan Food, & Theatre

As vegans, we know how important the concept of voting with your dollar is. Spending money is a political act: what and who you decide to give that money to matters, because it gives the recipient power. The power to operate, the power to continue doing what they’re doing. Often, this is a happy decision. We support small ethical brands so that they can keep existing and providing products that don’t harm the earth. We support decent people so they know we’re behind them. And the flip side is equally important: We know not to give our hard-earned money to the big evil corporations who test on animals and contribute to serious global and environmental health problems. And, of course, we vote by buying vegan food and products, making the statement that we don’t support animal cruelty. Although being cognizant of what brands, products, and entities to support is a constant undertaking, it’s not really too difficult. My general rule of thumb is ‘don’t support assholes’. However, I see other people supporting assholes all the time (like allll the time), and I wanted to share my reasoning for not supporting a few things today.

The first one is a popular fashion brand, one of the most popular actually. It breaks my heart to see a constant stream of happy shoppers spending tons of money there at all times. And true I haven’t written about fashion in literally years but this seems like a good way to get back into that. The second is a restaurant chain that I actually loved, but when I learned about its behind-the-scenes drama, I had to stop. The third is a big bummer, because it’s an exciting new Broadway production that I won’t be buying a ticket to next season. I’m not telling anyone not to support these brands or events; I’m simply sharing why I don’t so you can make your own informed decisions. I know I have a lot of work to do myself regarding what companies, restaurants, &c I continue to support, so I wanted to share this in case others can learn from it.

ZARA

When I was studying abroad in 2005, I discovered Zara. I adored most of their pieces – it was like the affordability and availability of H&M and Gap but tailor-made for my style. I was obsessed. But then the following year, we saw that they were selling bags with swastikas on them. Seems like a really basic thing to know not to do, but there it was. The bags were pulled as soon as a customer complained about the offensive symbol, but considering how many steps there are from design to production to stocking and delivery in shops, it seems incredible that no one along the way noticed this aspect of the design until customers did. Indeed, the company’s apology stated that there were no swastikas in the approved design, and that they were just as surprised as we were when the Indian company who supplied the bags added this element. It would be a believable story if it were a one-off.

But then in 2014, they sold the infamous children’s shirt that resembled the striped uniforms that Holocaust victims were forced to wear: blue and white stripes with a yellow Jude star. This one wasn’t excused away by a supplier issue but by a difference in intention: In their apology, the company said that the star was intended to be a sheriff’s badge. And while it did indeed say ‘SHERIFF’ on the yellow badge, the combination with the blue and white stripes is at the very least ill-considered. Also, it reminds me of another controversial star image that was excused as being a sheriff’s badge as an attempt to excuse its blatant anti-Semitism.

Amid these problems with obviously anti-Semitic products, the fast fashion giant was investigated for horrific sweatshop conditions at a Sao Paolo factory. Then, there was the, let’s say underdeveloped “White is the New Black” tee shirt which was received rather poorly by people who are against racism, as you might expect. Since then, they’ve been sued by a former Jewish and gay employee for anti-Semitic and anti-gay treatment. And I’m sure you remember that Melania Trump’s famous “I Really Don’t Care Do U” jacket, which was received as pointedly referring to the tragedies at the border concentration camps but really could be about literally anything the White House is doing, was from Zara as well, to literally no one’s surprise.

The parent company, Inditex, also owns brands Pull&Bear, Massimo Dutti, Bershka, Stradivarius, Oysho, and Uterque. Considering all of these issues they’ve faced over the years plus the allegations against those in positions of power in this company, I do not support these brands.

BY CHLOE

Some of you vegans or vegan-friendly eaters are probably aghast at seeing this popular NYC-based chain here. “What!” you might be saying. “I love Chloe! She’s the best!” Yeah, Chloe is the best, and that’s why I don’t support ‘by CHLOE’ anymore. After working her ass off for years and years to develop her own hugely successful brand, Chloe worked her ass off to build ‘by CHLOE’, a hugely successful vegan restaurant that now has more than half a dozen locations. But Chloe herself was forced out a few years ago, and the issues surrounding her ouster are complicated, to say the least. 

There were rumors that her business partners – Samantha Wasser, enormous hospitality group ESquared, and Wasser’s father Jimmy Haber, who is the CEO of ESquared – wanted to start serving meat under the ‘by CHLOE’ name. They’ve denied that claim, but that part is the least of it. It seems at the very least understood that there were many differences of opinion in how the business should move forward, and considering that it would all come across as being under Chloe’s own name, she understandably had strong thoughts about these next steps. However, an arbitrator ruled against Chloe. I’d normally show respect for that decision, but given the David vs. Goliath set-up of this dispute, it’s clear there’s more to it. And there is: in a lawsuit Chloe filed last year, she states that the group ousted her after she rejected Haber’s sexual advances. I don’t know about you but I believe women, and there is nothing easier to believe than an all-powerful white male CEO taking advantage of a beautiful young woman he has power over, and then acting out when he doesn’t get what he wants.

To top that off, nothing riles me up more than people abusing intellectual property law. (Okay obviously apart from abusing women, children, animals, &c.) This year, ESquared sued Chloe over her new pop-up restaurant Supernatural, which she runs with celebrity chef Supernatural and which I visited last month in NYC. ESquared sued her for trademark infringement, stating that this pop-up – with a completely unrelated name – would be too confusing to fans of ‘by CHLOE’ and they would think it was related, simply because it’s Chloe doing something else. By their logic, or lack thereof, brand confusion would arise whenever anyone did more than one thing. This dick move seems too much like a petty attempt to stop Chloe from working in food in NYC at all and I will not stand by while jerks try to use my beloved trademark law to defend something so weak and so clearly not a violation.

ESquared Hospitality also owns several non-vegan restaurants which you can find listed here. 

WEST SIDE STORY ON BROADWAY

I know, with this one you’re like ‘what in the world’, but there’s a reason. Next season on Broadway, mega-producer and well-known bully Scott Rudin is mounting a new production of West Side Story with director Ivo Van Hove (whose past directorial works in London have always smelled of misogyny). The cast of this much-anticipated revival was just announced this week, and in the prime role of Bernardo is New York City Ballet dancer Amar Ramasar, which decent people who love theatre are justifiably angry about.

If you don’t follow NYC culture news, Amar’s name has been discussed a lot in the past year for his involvement in a disgusting, disturbing case of sexual harassment and all-around despicable behavior at the ballet. He and friends of his (all men who should be in jail with him for their actions: Chase Finlay, Zachary Catazaro, and Jared Longhitano) from the ballet (all either dancers or donors) shared private (sexual) pictures and videos of female ballerinas in group texts and joked about all the crimes they would commit to them and other ‘sluts’. One of the victims – a young ballerina whose reputation and thus career was harmed – brought a lawsuit, and Finlay resigned from the ballet while Ramasar and Catazaro were suspended and then fired. Allegations in the lawsuit state that this sort of behavior was condoned from the top, as the NYCB and the School of American Ballet were well aware of the extensiveness of this type of behavior and did nothing to stop it, at one time asking the men to simply keep such actions in NYC, where it’s ‘easier to control.’ Obviously, the NYCB is on my shit list as well.

However, Ramasar and Catazaro were just reinstated at the ballet: the American Guild of Musical Artists (AGMA) appealed their case to an independent arbitrator. So fuck the AGMA too. The arbitrator, whose identity I can’t find but I have a feeling it was someone with a penis, said their termination was inappropriate and suspension should have been enough. You know what else is inappropriate? Rape culture. While Catazaro declined to return at present because he is dancing with Bayerisches Staatsballett in Munich (another ballet company I won’t be seeing anytime soon/ever, hi Munich), Ramasar is back and now with two unbelievably coveted jobs in New York, two jobs that are both the kind that most people only dream about obtaining: a prime position at the NYCB and a starring role in a huge Broadway musical. COOL GUYS. Also Bernardo shouldn’t be 37 YEARS OLD.

You know what, fuck this revival anyway for not using Jerome Robbins’s classic choreography.

Okay those are my thoughts on this topic for this week. Considering my proclivity for complaint, this’ll probably be a regular series. What similar things have you just learned about that you want to share with the class?