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

[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.