As vegans, we know how important the concept of voting with\nyour dollar is. Spending money is a political act: what and who you decide to\ngive that money to matters, because it gives the recipient power. The power to\noperate, the power to continue doing what they\u2019re doing. Often, this is a happy\ndecision. We support small ethical brands so that they can keep existing and\nproviding products that don\u2019t harm the earth. We support decent people so they\nknow we\u2019re behind them. And the flip side is equally important: We know not to\ngive our hard-earned money to the big evil corporations who test on animals and\ncontribute to serious global and environmental health problems. And, of course,\nwe vote by buying vegan food and products, making the statement that we don\u2019t\nsupport animal cruelty. Although being cognizant of what brands, products, and\nentities to support is a constant undertaking, it\u2019s not really too difficult. My\ngeneral rule of thumb is \u2018don\u2019t support assholes\u2019. However, I see other people\nsupporting assholes all the time (like allll the time), and I wanted to share\nmy reasoning for not supporting a few things today. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
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\u2019t 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\u2019s an exciting new Broadway production that I won\u2019t be buying a ticket to next season. I\u2019m not telling anyone not to support these brands or events; I\u2019m simply sharing why I don\u2019t 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
ZARA<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n When I was studying abroad in 2005, I discovered Zara. I adored most of their pieces \u2013 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<\/a><\/span> 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\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n But then in 2014, they sold the infamous children\u2019s shirt that resembled the striped uniforms<\/a> <\/span>that Holocaust victims were forced to wear: blue and white stripes with a yellow Jude star. This one wasn\u2019t 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\u2019s badge. And while it did indeed say \u2018SHERIFF\u2019 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\u2019s badge<\/a><\/span> as an attempt to excuse its blatant anti-Semitism.<\/p>\n Amid these problems<\/a><\/span> 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\u2019s say underdeveloped \u201cWhite is the New Black\u201d tee shirt which was received rather poorly by people who are against racism, as you might expect. Since then, they\u2019ve been sued by a former Jewish and gay employee<\/span> for anti-Semitic and anti-gay treatment<\/a>. And I\u2019m sure you remember that Melania Trump\u2019s famous \u201cI Really Don\u2019t Care Do U\u201d 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\u2019s surprise.<\/p>\n The parent company, Inditex, also owns brands Pull&Bear, Massimo Dutti, Bershka, Stradivarius, Oysho, and Uterque. Considering all of these issues they\u2019ve faced over the years plus the allegations against those in positions of power in this company, I do not support these brands.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n BY CHLOE<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n Some of you vegans or vegan-friendly eaters are probably aghast at seeing this popular NYC-based chain here. \u201cWhat!\u201d you might be saying. \u201cI love Chloe! She\u2019s the best!\u201d Yeah, Chloe is<\/em> the best, and that\u2019s why I don\u2019t support \u2018by CHLOE\u2019 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<\/a><\/span>, and the issues surrounding her ouster are complicated, to say the least. <\/p>\n There were rumors that her business partners \u2013 Samantha Wasser, enormous hospitality group ESquared, and Wasser\u2019s father Jimmy Haber, who is the CEO of ESquared \u2013 wanted to start serving meat under the \u2018by CHLOE\u2019 name. They\u2019ve 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\u2019s own name, she understandably had strong thoughts about these next steps. However, an arbitrator ruled against Chloe. I\u2019d normally show respect for that decision, but given the David vs. Goliath set-up of this dispute, it\u2019s clear there\u2019s more to it. And there is: in a lawsuit Chloe filed last year<\/span><\/a>, she states that the group ousted her after she rejected Haber\u2019s sexual advances. I don\u2019t 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\u2019t get what he wants.<\/p>\n 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<\/a><\/span>. ESquared sued her for trademark infringement, stating that this pop-up \u2013 with a completely unrelated name \u2013 would be too confusing to fans of \u2018by CHLOE\u2019 and they would think it was related, simply because it\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n ESquared Hospitality also owns several non-vegan restaurants which you can find listed here<\/a><\/span>. <\/p>\n <\/p>\n WEST SIDE STORY ON BROADWAY<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n I know, with this one you\u2019re like \u2018what in the world\u2019, but there\u2019s a reason. Next season on Broadway, mega-producer and well-known bully Scott Rudin is mounting a new production of West Side Story<\/em> 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.<\/p>\n If you don\u2019t follow NYC culture news, Amar\u2019s name has been discussed a lot in the past year for his involvement in a disgusting, disturbing case of sexual harassment<\/a><\/span> 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 \u2018sluts\u2019. One of the victims \u2013 a young ballerina whose reputation and thus career was harmed \u2013 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\u2019s \u2018easier to control.\u2019 Obviously, the NYCB is on my shit list as well.<\/p>\n