ele, i understand your point, and every debate i've ever had about AA comes down to supporting a socially responsible company with a socially irresponsible CEO. what a dilemma!
there are a lot of reasons i wish i could support AA more -- the ethically sourced materials, the use of diverse models, etc -- and the fact that it "glamorizes" these things really brings these kinds of efforts out in the public to a market that wouldn't generally be aware of them.
i guess i just don't like the fact that money i would like to think is well-spent on such endeavors also goes to line dov charney's pockets -- which means the women who take him to court for sexual harrassment get paid off, to some degree, with my moolah. there are many other sources for ethical, free-trade, organic clothing that doesn't have to be AA.
there's also, of course, the matter of the gawker article combined with the fact that AA sizes extremely small. the company has an aesthetic, it makes it very clear what its aesthetic is, and you can only partake of their responsible clothing if you fit into it. that doesn't seem fair.
these are totally my gripes about AA, of course, and ele is right -- looking at the big picture, there are lots of things to like in the company's practices. i'm just glad this has provoked so much discussion, because as a company i find it fascinating!
