#81 - Forever John 3:16?

[reileen]

The path I take to the nearest Borders here in downtown takes me past a number of quaint fashion boutiques, from the unknown (Roberto's something-or-other) to the more well-known (H&M, Urban Outfitters). Forever 21 falls into the the latter category. I'd been at a Forever 21 store before, but I hadn't visited there in a while, so while on my way to Borders tonight I took a brief detour into the fashion freezer. I was almost too busy admiring the cute styles before remembering something that dogemperor mentioned in a comment long ago on dark_christian: that Forever 21 might actually have ties to the Christian dominionism movement. The possible giveaway? "John 3:16" is printed on the bottom of their shopping bags. dogemperor never followed up on his/her suspicions as far as I know, so I decided to do a bit of Googling myself and see what popped up.

Wikipedia, as well as this Google hit, mentions that the founders of the Forever 21 chain (which includes Heritage 1981, a store I'd never heard of, and Gadzooks, which surprised me), Do Won Chang and his wife Jin Sook, placed the Bible reference (just the reference, not the actual verse) on the bottom of Forever 21's trademark yellow shopping bags as a way to express their devout Christian faith. However, the most suspicious thing I've dug up on them so far that could possibly relate to dominionism is the fact that they donated $3 million to Fuller Theological Seminary in SoCal. And while Fuller is evangelical (and the alma mater of Rick Warren, author of The Purpose-Driven Life), its mission statement contained nothing of the dominionist sort, such as the late Falwell's Liberty University (official site here).

Forever 21 isn't off the hook for some people, however. It's been accused of "stealing" designs from Gwen Stefani, Diane von Furstenberg, and Anna Sui. But apparently this sort of copying is entirely legal:

The logos and labels that adorn apparel and accessories are protected by trademark law. But the designs of the garments themselves – the cut of a sleeve, the fit of a bodice – are not. Copyright law does not cover most fashion designs because clothing is a “useful article”, a class of items that falls in the jurisdiction of patents and not copyrights. But patent law is almost irrelevant to fashion designs, both because the patent standard of “novelty” cannot be met by most designs, and for the practical reason that the patent application process proceeds too slowly to be meaningful for most fashion designs, which live a brief commercial life and then disappear.

Which makes enough sense to me.

Along similar lines, though, some people are concerned with the dual-message that Forever 21 apparently espouses as a result of juxtaposing nigh-invisible evangelism with the latest in young adult fashion trends: "Girls, go get your freak on tonight, but be sure to repent in the morning."

What concerns me more is the issues with sweatshop labor, where Forever 21 allegedly was not paying its garment workers minimum wage or providing decent working conditions (long hours without overtime pay, no drinking water fountains, no breaks, cockroaches in the factories). It appears to have been resolved, however.

On the bright side, Forever 21 doesn't use real animal fur in their clothes!

-Reileen
a dress wearing a face in the doorway