Sweating with the Enemy

[pegkerr]

Here is an interesting article from the Boston Globe on the question some have struggled with over the question of whether Curves should be boycotted because the founder donates money to anti-abortion causes.

If getting fit also means enriching a millionaire who donates to antiabortion groups, why is Curves sweeping across New England with the force of a blizzard? Thousands of Massachusetts women are facing the question of health versus choice. How will they reconcile the personal with the political?

I'm not interested in starting a flame war about abortion in this journal, heaven knows (really, please don't post your rants pro or against about the subject here; I'm still recovering from the last kerfluffle over gay marriage. Don't make me resort to the delete key). But I'm thinking instead about the larger issue, in general, of how we choose to spend our consumer dollars can have an unlooked-for political impact. The article points out that NOW considered whether to start a boycott against Curves but decided that in the end, it would hurt franchise owners (many women who were just getting into business for themselves) rather than Heavin. I remember the Domino's controversy; I read a story about one hapless Domino's franchise owner who went broke because of the boycott; he was pro-choice himself, and he wondered, I'm just trying to sell pizza. How is driving me out of business helping choice causes?

I note from the article that some Curvers are solving the dilemma by increasing their prochoice contributions; see reference to the website curversforchoice.com. This seems to be at least a partial solution. The article also points out that unlike in the case of Dominos, where you could simply choose another pizza brand, there really isn't any business providing an alternative to the type of niche Curves fills.

My mom uses Curves. I've always exercised on my own, using videos and DVDs.

In a related story, I see the Southern Baptists announced they are ending the Disney boycott.

Comments

[kalquessa.livejournal.com]

Here in CA we have Total Woman, which if I'm not mistaken is roughly the same thing as Curves (though I've never been to either establishment...my mom works out at Total Woman). I have no idea what other (if any) states TM has locations in, though. It may be a strictly CA or West Coast chain.

[wintersweet.livejournal.com]

In the Bay Area there are a bunch of Curves knockoffs, and I saw at least one when I was in Little Rock, Arkansas, so it's not just in major metro areas. I don't think that the "no alternatives" defense works.

[mark356.livejournal.com]

In Greater Boston it does.

[prunesnprisms.livejournal.com]

It doesn't. There's a Curves-alike on Mass Ave not half a mile from me. The Powderhouse Circle Curves went out of business.

[peacockharpy.livejournal.com]

In a related story, I see the Southern Baptists announced they are ending the Disney boycott.

Amazingly, just in time for The Chronicles of Narnia to hit theaters!

[aerden.livejournal.com]

Hm. If this were a case of charitable donations, I would feel that the owner of Curves has the right to make whatever charitable donations he chooses, whether or not I agree with the aims of the organizations receiving the money.

If the owner is making significant contributions to political action committees/organizations, then I would be more inclined to not give him my business, if I disagree with the political aim he supports. Political issues can become laws, and I prefer to avoid even indirectly giving financial support to a cause that I think would be bad legislation.

I think I like the people who are increasing their financial support to opposing organizations. That sounds to me like a wholly sensible and mature thing to do, rather than boycotting. Why drive a good product out of the marketplace?

Chantal

[callunav.livejournal.com]

I remember the Dominos boycott, too - and I wasn't sure anyone else did, so it was interesting to see your reference. I think the parallel is a good one.

I remember it particularly because it started around the time I was a senior in high school, not long after I had reinvented the wheel by coming up, on my own, with the idea that I was making political choices when I spent my money. I didn't hear the phrase "voting with your dollar" until later, when I made the welcome if somewhat embarassing discovery that lots of people had been very actively doing what I'd 'discovered' for myself, for a long time.

That was around the same time when I discovered that the success of the famous Netle boycott of my youth had been a scam - Nestle had agreed to stop engaging in the objectionable practices, the boycott had ended, and Nestle had continued on its merry way, and still does to this day. So I was vociferously re-joining the Nestle boycott (I still am - I don't buy Nestle candy, Poland Springs water, Contadina pastas, Carnation products, etc. - Nestle has its fingers in a /lot/), and a lot of my peers were boycotting Coke for Apartheid-related reasons (which seemed reasonable to me - I just didn't buy Coke often enough to make boycotting an issue), and then along came the Dominos issue. And a lot of my friends tangled the Dominos boycott right in with the Coke boycott and advocated both, but somewhere along the way, someone set out the franchise problem to me, and after a lot of thought - I was a very intense 17-year-old - I decided /not/ to boycott Dominos, for exactly the reasons you describe.

I don't use Curves, and I'm a little cynical about their approach, but I see a lot of good in the way it's operating. (I could go on at length about the virtues of Curves, but that's not really the point.) Going back to how I thought about the Dominos boycott and other things since then, I think I'd probably come down on the side of--if I used and liked Curves in the first place--staying with them and taking other approaches. I'd make the donations, if I could afford to. If I had the mental energy and no one else was doing it, I'd be getting out the "I use Curves and I'm Pro-Choice" bumper stickers and the "I support Curves *and* Choice" t-shirts. And if I got run off that particular road for use of a trademarked name, I'd find other methods to let people know where I (and hopefully lots of other people) stood--one could, for instance, probably get up a nice logo writing the word "Choice" in the same, recognizable font/script that's used for "Curves," possibly with sneakers on the feet of the 'h' or something to emphasize the exercise connection, and all the same colors.

Things like that. I'm a /big/ ol' fan of voting with my dollar, and I do it as rigorously as I can afford to and I strongly support the general premise. However, boycotts are rarely very successful in the US, and in this case seem (to me) to be doubly the wrong way to approach the issue. There are, after all, other ways.

[dichroic.livejournal.com]

I have issues with them too. I wonder if it would be more effective just to convince their clientele that sweating is good, as is the regular use of large pieces of iron, and that most of those people in the bigger gyms are too absorbed in their own workouts to be looking down on anyone else.

[nmsunbear.livejournal.com]

I participated in the Domino's boycott. But then, I hate their pizza, so that was pretty easy. ;)

[aome.livejournal.com]

My father somehow knew which completely unrelated brands were actually owned by Reynolds or some other tobacco-producing giant, and he would boycott them until they were sold off to a non-tobacco parent company. So, for a while, suddenly we couldn't eat at KFC, or buy Mrs Smith's frozen pies, or what have you. He believed that strongly in his anti-smoking cause. I still don't know how he found these things out. But good point about finding another way to support your cause while not crushing potentially-uninvolved franchise owners.

Enlighten me: how is Curves different from other gyms? I know they focus on 30-min workouts for women, but that can be done elsewhere, can't it?

Apologies for spamming your LJ today. :)

[callunav.livejournal.com]

The Curves spots I've seen have been different from other gyms for a number of reasons - and some of my itemizing is simply repeating what you've already said, but with a different emphasis. This is /my/ analysis, and I state up front that I'm extrapolating from a lot of thought and little data:

- They're exclusively for women.

- Unlike most of the other all-women options, like Healthworks, they're very affordable.

- They can exist in very small places, and involve modest amounts of equipment, so that they're very easy for people to start up a new branch of - that means instead of two big ones in a metro area, you have dozens of small ones. That means the customer can just about always find one conveniently located, and the owner (of the particular branch) can be someone who doesn't have a lot of capital to start with.

- They give an exact, known time for the work-out. This makes it much less intimidating, because the customer can easily figure out when in the day they consistently have half an hour to spend, as opposed to the nebulous, gaseous (expands to fill however much room its given) "work out" in a gym that provides less structure/instruction.

- Because they're small, local, for women, and easily built into a routine, they quickly establish a base of customers who know each other, for whom going becomes a social as well as athletic occasion. And everyone there is doing exactly the same thing.

- They strongly emphasize weight loss and generalized, mild conditioning. There is not the slightest hint of athleticisim or body-building. This tallies well with the very common perception that mainstream women are scared of becoming /too/ athletic or muscular, and would actively prefer exercise that will give them health benefits and weight loss without making them into jocks - that is, without significantly changing their pre-existing self-image. I, personally, have an ideological problem with this. It is not at all what I would /want/ women to want. However, it does in fact match up well with my observation of the desires of many of my female coworkers, and also the adolescent girls I've worked with and talked with. It's by no means (and /I/ happen to say 'Thank goodness' about this) universal, but it is very, very common. I saw similar trends in Miriam Nelson's admirable work on strength training - the repeated reassurance that it was possible to do these work-outs without developing huge muscles or becoming /athletes/. (I, personally, would love to have big muscles, and revel in strong, athletic, capable--oops, my biases are showing in that conflation--/muscular/ girls and women. But I appear not to be mainstream in this.)

[huladavid.livejournal.com]

Some years back I came to the conclusion that I feel responsible for what companies do with the money I give them, which is one reason why I shop a few rungs down the economic ladder. Not for everyone, but it's what I believe.

[pixelfish.livejournal.com]

I like having the corporate information so I can choose whether or not to funnel my dollars in that direction or not. I like to know if a company is associated with Wal*Wart, for example, or if they have unfair labour practises. But it's my choice....I don't know if I can encourage an all-out boycott of anybody based upon their religious/moral/personal beliefs. I can, however, say, "Ya know, I just don't feel good about this."

That said, in a case like Curves, couldn't a group of women get together, pool their money and start another females-only gym franchise that had full concerns for women's rights and health?? There seem to be enough women who enjoy Curves and who would patronise another such establishment if the establishment had a more female friendly agenda. Competition might reduce the Curves founders pushing their own agenda.

[kokopoko.livejournal.com]

Does boycotting actually achieve anything? Has it ever achieved it's intended goal? From my viewpoint it just makes a huge fuss hurting not the target but everyone else.

[callunav.livejournal.com]

I think it's very, very rare for boycotts in the US to achieve their goals through strictly financial mechanisms--which is the stated intent of the boycott. The Nestle boycott was one of the few vast, really effective consumer boycotts in recent US economic history: it actually /hurt/ Nestle financially - and it failed due to (as far as I understand it) unscrupulous dishonesty, against which we have no defense. But I, personally, think there are two other things to consider.

1. Whether your choices in how, where, and for what you spend your money will have a perceptible impact on a company or not, every time you buy you're still making choices, you're still participating in the politics as well as the economics. Every purchase is a statement. Yes, it's in a microscopic way, but that's how individuals operate in the system, and that's the scale we have that we can use. I don't buy Nestle products, I don't shop at Walmart or Home Depot, I don't go to Starbucks, and I don't buy from Barnes&Noble, Borders, or Amazon, and no, I don't think that the lack of my business has a noticeable effect on any of them. But I'm responsible for where my money goes, however small my contribution may be. Keeping that responsibility in mind is important--to me, anyhow. And I studied chaos theory enough when I was minoring in physics to know that in complex matters, small variables have unpredictable impacts on the system. You never know when something small will matter greatly.

2. "Making a huge fuss" is in fact the way in which boycotts /do/ achieve things, in the States. When people were boycotting Coke and badmouthing the company for its enablement of/involvement in Apartheid, I don't think there was any real economic damage to the company at all. But the /fuss/ was big enough that the company made some very well-publicized changes in its policies. Fuss is probably the most significant tool the individual American consumer has at her or his disposal. When we are not polite, when we are bitchyor strident, when we are loud, when we make a scene, then we stand a chance of making changes. And a boycott - even a completely unsuccesful one from a financial standpoint - is sometimes the best vehicle for organizing an effective and penetrating fuss.

[kokopoko.livejournal.com]

Fuss is probably the most significant tool the individual American consumer has at her or his disposal. When we are not polite, when we are bitchyor strident, when we are loud, when we make a scene, then we stand a chance of making changes. And a boycott - even a completely unsuccesful one from a financial standpoint - is sometimes the best vehicle for organizing an effective and penetrating fuss.

So has the anti abortion protests diminished the number of abortions done? That was one hell of a fuss with protestors in front of clinics.

[aerden.livejournal.com]

When I shop, I tend to favor what is practical, money-wise and travel-wise, for me.

I like books. Traveling is difficult for me, so I frequently buy from Amazon. There is a Randall's directly across the street from my house. Even though it is more expensive than Kroger's, I can get to it quickly and under my own power, and I can use coupons, so I shop there. Ditto for Wal-Mart. It's across the street, its merchandise is inexpensive, and some more politically-correct store is not across the street. So I shop at Wal-mart.

For me, when it comes to a choice between what's practical and what is politically popular to boycott, I ignore politics. It's a luxury.

Chantal

[callunav.livejournal.com]

For me, when it comes to a choice between what's practical and what is politically popular to boycott, I ignore politics. It's a luxury.

Your response here seems very dismissive to me. I don't know whether you meant it to be or not; possibly I'm misundertanding you entirely. I do understand that your perception of the situation and the forces at work is different from mine, and I think what you describe sounds valid and very widely held.

I described some decisions I've made, and I've expressed the perceptions that have caused me to make them: I avoid giving my money to the businesses I named because they engage in practices I object to. That's a personal choice I've made. I didn't ask what anyone else did, let alone ask for justifications. I haven't criticized anyone for making choices different from mine. It seems a pity to me to use loaded language in reference to what someone else has written, since it seems likely to engender bad feeling more than productive discussion.

[prunesnprisms.livejournal.com]

I specifically did not join a Curves that was less than 1 block from my last apartment because of knowing about the founder's anti-abortion leanings. I read the article in the Globe--I think there are more women who don't join because of this than you would think, well, that and that it's not really a great way to work out.

the Curves down the street from me went out of business or moved or lost their lease--not uncommon in this high-rent area, and I note there is a Curves-alike place to work out about a half-mile down. I bet they are locally owned and don't have political leanings.

[nmalfoy.livejournal.com]

I have my prescriptions at Albertson's (SavOn) and they're one of the companies that allows their pharmacists to refuse to fill birth control prescriptions. So I'm torn because the people that work at this pharmacy are really good, really nice and I hate to move to another one when they have my history and all that. And is my moving my prescription going to change Albertsons' policy? Likely not. So I think what I'm going to do is talk to the pharmacist herself, see how she feels, and take things from there. I'm all for boycotts in theory, but, just like worker's strikes (in which the workers can't pay bills because they're on strike so they end up hurting themselves) I think they can do more harm than good to unsuspecting people, like the Domino's franchise owner you spoke of.

[adrian-turtle.livejournal.com]

Curves is not the only company selling beginner workouts to out-of-shape women in a non-intimidating way. They may be the only national chain in the business, and they may be the only one with such extreme standardization. Those are good for marketing, but I don't think they're good for customers.

There's a storefront women's fitness place on Mass Ave in Cambridge that looks to be competing with Curves rather than Healthworks. (The name of the place escapes me, but I know just where it is.) The sign in the window advertises their low prices. Their hours are almost as limited as Curves, which is not open evenings or weekends at all, nor early mornings. I think Healthworks is open from 5-6am until 10-11pm. Curves only allows for one workout. That's all. As people have said above, it's intended for mild general conditioning, but it's extremely regimented. Someone who can't do the standard workout because of injury or somesuch needs to go to another gym to exercise other parts of the body. And someone who becomes fit enough that the standard workout isn't challenging needs to go to another gym to get an actual workout.)

One thing that makes me uncomfortable about Curves is the focus on weight loss. There are a lot of women who are out of shape and in need of a beginner workout that is presented in a non-intimidating way, in a supportive atmosphere. (Including a lot of people who can't afford a Healthworks membership fee.) The Curves-competitor had signs in their window about getting fit, about strength and stamina and health. Curves pushes fitness progress in terms of losing weight, and I don't like the connotations of that.