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]

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.