Posted by delqc on 2005-08-01 14:41:15
Post Subject: Michaels & Buy Blue
Hey,
I was just doign some reading on http://www.buyblue.org (actually inspired by the Bust thread and the comment on Urban Outfitters anti-feminist politics, which google knew nothing about - but I digress).
Did you know that:
Michaels Stores currently has a 0% BuyBlue rating due to political contributions for the 2003-2004 election cycle. Michael's executives contributed a mind numbing $424,406 during the last election, solely to Republican politicians. Michael's does not have a political action committee.
I know a lot of you Americans out there shop at Michaels, and I thought this might interest you, no matter what your political orientation.
Posted by ada on 2005-03-01 09:49:05
Post Subject:
I'm afraid that looking at the 'Gather the Women' website (that the Utne article is talking about) brings me out in a rash... there's phrases like
Gather the Women rests in the deep well of grace provided by Divine Source, with the commitment to honoring all the diverse expressions of faith in that One Being.
See, I think this is setting up a religious feminist movement, including only those religions that believe in 'one being' who is 'divine'.
Nothing wrong with that as such - as Athos said, many past social movements came from religious people and communities, and just imagine the changes possible if traditionally conservative religious groups would begin to think in feminist terms.
But I am nervous that, in the past, the version of 'feminism' this brings forward is not a liberal feminism. For example, the bit of the article that honeybee cites - that women being outsiders from the authority positions in institutions is really a good thing because then they don't have to follow protocol - makes me terribly nervous. What does this leave women free to do exactly? Make subtle suggestions to their husbands while serving him dinner?
Perhaps I am being too harsh - and I don't mean to say that this is actually what the 'Gather the Women' movement is about, or will come to. But I find this strongly religion-linked approach unsettling and excluding.
*edited to add*
I am not sure I quite got at what I was trying to say. What I mean is, it's fine by me if religious women want to form a feminist movement, all power to them if it is actually feminist in the sense of building on the work of earlier waves of feminists rather than dismantling it (e.g. abortion rights). But I don't think it could include enough women to ever be a 'fourth wave'. And if it is the fourth wave, then it's pretty obvious what the criticism to it would be - see slowgraffiti220's post for that! - and where we might go with a fifth wave. (And, if I can already now anticipate the hypothetical 'fifth wave', and actually women are already living in that manner, doesn't that seem a better candidate for the next substantial movement in feminist politics?)
Posted by nucular on 2005-08-01 13:07:36
Post Subject:
i have to say, as a long-time subscriber to bust, at first this thread got me feeling defensive. after some thought though, i realized that i too think bust has been sliding in a lot of ways recently. (boy, that's hard to admit. i feel like i'm growing apart from a best friend.) their hetero-focus has been driving me nuts, they showcase products from companies with questionable policies and un-feminist politics (e.g., urban outfitters), they rarely have a full-length article that has any real substance, and the writing style can be incredibly juvenile. that being said, i still think bust is leaps and bounds above any mainstream women's magazine, and it fulfills my need for glossy pictures where bitch doesn't.
soapandwater, the whole sarah silverman in venus thing was awful. their response to a letter that made valid points was incredibly dismissive. i hope it's not a sign of things to come, because that magazine is my main source of new music.
