May 25, 2004

• Honestly, would a boycott of Curves by its pro-choice members really hurt this guy? I can't see how that would be. As the story in the first link pointed out, it likely would be most devastating to the individual franchise owners. On the other hand, it would make me cringe to think that my membership dues would be going to some organization I vehemently oppose.
• On the other hand, it would make me cringe to think that my membership dues would be going to some organization I vehemently oppose. Filled your gas tank lately?
• I'm trying not to think about that. Unfortunate that gas is such a necessity. Not to mention the fact that at the rate we're going, soon it'll be cheaper to run your car on 12-year-old single malt.
• I don't think the point is hurting that guy per se, as much as it is about not supporting the causes he's using profits for. As with all discussions about boycotting, it can go on to the point where you don't even want to open your door. There are some things that are important to us and there are some things we can control. In many cases, where we have gym memberships is under our control (sometimes there are not very many alternatives depending on where you live). Filling up my gas tank is something I can't really control. I suppose I could take the bus everywhere, but most buses around here use gas so there you have it. I heard about the whole Curves thing a month or so ago and then I found out my mother just started going there. For her, finding a club that she could stick with and enjoy was more important than standing up for this issue. I'm not thrilled about it, but I'm happy that she found a place she can go. I think that curves for choice page is awesome. I think it's a nice compromise.
• Finding out what business owners do with their profits is like finding out what's in a hotdog. You're better off not knowing.
• My stance on the issue has been this: giving up your Curves membership is a symbolic act. It does nothing to actually help secure reproductive rights. Curves is unique in that these small neighborhood gyms really promote a sense of community. A far better way to advance the pro-choice issue would be for concerned Curves members to use these communities to educate and mobilize on the issues. Boycotting will only hurt the franchise owners many of whom are pro-choice. Interestingly, Heavin has already started back-peddling on his involvment with anti-choice organizations.
• I've been struggling with this too. I have a limited membership to Curves (a two month gift certificate), and I'm glad that I'm not locked into a full year. I think I'll be checking out other similar centers (like Ladies Workout Express, or find a center that offers PACE classes).
• * snort * That's hilarious, rocket. I found a really interesting link on the Curvers for Choice page to a Salon article detailing the media shitstorm. There are some interesting letters in response to the article as well. Day pass or membership required, bien sur.
• What rocket88 said. I have a friend who's a passionate activist for (insert liberal cause here). I really respect his passion and his drive to try to effect positive change, but it's amazing how it has limited his choices. Purchasing anything from clothing to food to sneakers to toiletries is for him like navigating a minefield. Sometimes I just want to hand him a beer and say, "Drink it, don't worry about who made it. It's made by benevolent fairies."
• I think the thing that's irritated most pro-choice curves enthusiasts is not so much that their money is going to a cause they don't support/are against (though that's part of it), it's that Curves is, at it's root level, about empowering women to lose weight in a woman-friendly atmosphere - in a woman-driven way. It's all about letting women use the tools they have to come at the problem of weight-loss in a way that is healthy and makes sense for them. It's a non-patriarchal, non-opressive gym. If you think that's great, or if you think it's a load of steamy horse poo, the thing that gets most pro-choice women upset is that this concept of empowerment and freedom is being used to fund a movement that they see as directly oppressing women. That's why Curves rankles more than say, gas or what have you.
• MonkeyFilter: It's made by benevolent fairies.
• Curves is, at it's root level, a business model that is making the owner $$$. empowering women to lose weight in a woman-friendly atmosphere - in a woman-driven way. is nothing more than advertisement gimick to get you into the door.
• FWIW: i had to undergo a short stint of physical therapy for a back problem recently. my PT said that Curves focuses mainly on the "woman-friendly atmosphere" and hardly anything on the safety of its machines and techniques. i guess he's seeing patients coming through after hurting themselves at curves because the franchises are independently owned and there are few if any physical therapists on staff. just a heads-up.
• Keep in mind some of the advantages of franchises that come into play in a situation like this. If you support your local Curves owner, that is truly a separate thing from contributing to the corporate parents bottom line. The local franchise owner is relatively free to use their facility as they wish, such as for after hours pro-choice education, if they so wished. You don't always have to obliterate those you you disagree with - you can subvert them, use them for your own goals. There's also the question of whether the corporate parent is even contributing corporate dollars to anti-abortion. The contributions listed so far seem to be personal donations by the company founder. He has a valid point when he stated "I respect freedom of speech and I expect it in return."
• blogRot, you're totally right - I only meant that this is the message that they tell women who walk in to any franchise - it's their public goal, their public face, as it were. The fact that any company exists to make money - fine. But the fact that their main selling point is the women-only, supportive atmosphere makes them better than a regular gym is where the problem is. To their credit, they don't speak broadly of empowerment or any of those big ideas, but the advertisment is rife with it. On a personal note, I'm often annoyed in the extreme by advertising campaigns that use the concept of 'empowerment' to sell products to women. Feeling opressed and downtrodden? A $10 Venus razor will make you feel loved and appreciated!
• What's a gym got to do with the pro-choice / pro-life argument anyway? This guy has a different opinion to some the clients of a company he owns, and acts accordingly. I don't see why people are calling for a boycott. The two aren't connected in anything but the most trivial way. Curves - the company - does nothing (that I could see from that web page) that affects the pro-choice/life argument. Its like boycotting Google cause one of the guys that started it has a Russian sounding name. Well, OK its not like that at all, but in my mind its just as misguided. Sounds like a case of Overactive Activist Syndrome to me. I hate people telling me what I should think - thats what I have a TV for.
• It's even more insidious than that, Klepton. Did you know that many major Exxon shareholders are anti-choice? Every time that you fill your car at an Exxon station, you're pouring money into anti-choice coffers and funding anti-choice activists! Boycott Exxon!! Nice post, kimdog.
• We must put an end to the horrow of activist, uh, fit peoples.
• That does it! I'm going to remain fat and smug! :\
• Abortion: empowering women to lose weight in a woman-friendly atmosphere ... letting women use the tools they have to come at the problem of weight-loss in a way that is healthy and makes sense for them. /comedy killer!
• No entry found for horrow. I am so screwed. Me IQ not no this werd. Are the anti-choicers different from the pro-lifers? or is this a puerile attempt at pro-choice morality.
• blogRot- The choice of language is hardly puerile. Language shapes and defines the way that people think about issues. Anti-choice/pro-life/pro-abortion/pro-choice labels are certainly a sign of this. But when looking at issues or reproductive freedom, it has most often been the right-wing that has manipulated language in a way to be inflammatory and misleading. The most notable example being the completely manufactured term "partial-birth abortion". I use "anti-choice" because that position dictates that women should not have the choice of abortion. I also disclosed by bias upfront. No hidden agendas here.
• I consider myself pro-death.
• my bias... my bias...
• (SideNote from SideDish: many newspapers, in an effort to be more neutral in use of terms have adopted "anti-abortion" and "abortion rights." that keeps "abortion" in each phrase, as opposed to "life" or "choice.")
• Don't you people have a Lucille Roberts? Coz that's where all the ladies in NY/NJ go to get all sweaty without the menfolk gawking.
• I'm right there with ya kimdog. It bugs me when people call the pro-choice movement "pro-abortion" because that certainly is not the case in all situations. It may be semantics, but in this case the semantics are important. So I don't think that abortion rights is so neutral. It carries as much connotation as pro-choice, and in my mind it misses the point.
• kimberly: how so? abortion rights means, the right to have an abortion on demand. curious as to how it misses the point. it's tricky, considering i fully, totally support a woman's right to have an abortion, but would find it difficult to have one myself.
• Yes Yes All good... but what does this 'horrow' word mean! has most often been the right-wing that has manipulated language in a way to be inflammatory and misleading Sinking to their level, are we? They'd say the same, but I don't wanna soil my computer visiting the sites. Do you have a link implicating The Right on partial birth abortion? ain't calling you out, just want specifics. But I think this makes for a very interesting study in consumerism and political activism. Only if you're considering how willing the women are to prostitute thier beliefs to look good.
• Ooh! My anti-choice mother goes to anti-choice Curves, but is oblivious to its founder's anti-choiceness. She'll be delighted with anti-choice glee when I call her and tell her.
• In the interest of FULL full disclosure, kimdog was nearly interviewed by the Today show on this topic. It's an interesting story, make her tell it.
• Kimdog, what hast thou to say?
• oh. thank. goddess...! my friend martha has been inccessantly pressuring me to join when i'd rather do outdoor activities, and this is the perfect way out. she's gonna flip her lid when she hears this too, so i'll probably luck out even further and have a new partner for hiking, biking, and rollerblading. wheeeee...!
• For some strange reason I can't log onto Mofi from home. Odd. Anyway... the rest of the story is this. My pro-choice Curves owner came to me when all this shit hit the fan and told me she was very concerned and asked if I could help her get involved. She came to me because before joining Curves, I had asked her many questions about the franchise structure and her personal politics, in order to determine if I felt comfortable joining, given that I work for a large pro-choice non-profit (oh, you can figure it out). So in the process of trying to get info for her, I ended up reaching out to some of the other activists already mobilizing (ala Curvers for Choice). I guess my particular story was of interest because I was soon contacted by the TODAY show and asked to do an interview. Alas, I was a victim of organizational red-tape. Given my ties to aforementioned large pro-choice non-profit, my superiors strongly advised that I not to the interview. They were afraid that I would end up being represented as the official voice of the organization, and since they haven't really formulated a position on the matter, there were concerns. But I've learned some valuable lessons about press and spin, etc. Ive also learned that I have to get off the corporate teat if I really want to do progressive grassroots organizing.
• blogRot has a point about both sides' chosen language. Are pro-choicers in favour of all choice issues, or just abortion choice? And are pro-lifers really pro-all life (many are also pro-death penalty, so I don't think so). The issue is abortion. If you don't use that word in your self-applied label, then what are you trying to hide?
• they haven't really formulated a position on the matter Then this matter must not be important to your pro-abortion non-profit considering the media attention it has already received. get off the corporate teat Stay true to yourself.
• For the pro-choice side, the issue is NOT simply abortion. The issues are access to a full range of contraceptive services, access to reproductive health care, and access to medically-accurate age-appropriate sex education. All of these are under attack, and all affect a woman and/or couple's ability to make morally responsible decisions about child bearing. I certainly don't mind talking about the language issues, but let's try not steer this down the usual divisive path.
• Yeah. What kimdog said was my point. And go you. I did a stint at MD NARAL and I had to quit because I couldn't face it every day. I'm glad you can.
• let's try not steer this down the usual divisive path. My bad. So Heavins is anti-abortion, you're a paying customer who is pro-choice, your miffed about stuffing his pockets with your moolah under "false pretenses" so he can express his first amendment rights, and you want to donate to one other organization you belong to but is antithetical to him under his name. That get it back OT?
• Sure, that is back on point, but I presented a lot of information in my original post that does not pertain to me personally. I'm not "miffed"- I joined Curves knowing about Heavin's support of anti-choice orgs. I don't necessarily believe he acted under "false pretenses". But many other women are alarmed, and my personal role in the situation has been to give them options for action beyond the "boycott/don't boycott" arguement. It's not a black and white issue, and I am quite comfortable living in a world with shades of grey.
• you're not the Kimberly from the article? To what end does it further your goals to join a club that you are ideologically opposed to? Does it lessen your position in the non-profit (loss of moral high ground?) False pretenses as in honest packaging and advertising (consumerism), not Haven's.
• What kimdog said.
• I can't let this pass without comment: blogrot, the club kimdog joined is a member of the Curves FRANCHISE. In other words, it's privately owned and I know for a fact that the owner of the particular club that kd attends is NOT an antichoiceprolife type and has actually been deeply torn and unsure how to deal with the contradiction in personal philosophy and business commitment. Also, may I suggest that you go back and look at those links more closely as a lot of the points you bring up are addressed within. For instance, why go to Curves in the first place? Well, it offers a very specific, very empowering beginners workout that is lowstress lowhassle and DOES WORK (as a trainer myself, I feel compelled to add that ANY exercise will effect considerable changes in your body and physiognomy if you're out of shape, but that's off topic). It's also affordable. KD also spoke directly with the owner about her concerns. All in all, I'd have to say that her ethical concerns were VERY much taken into consideration and when one bears in mind the amount of free time and hassle that she's clearly already invested in making her opposing opinion heard, I daresay she's got the "moral high ground" covered awful well. If we all obsessively researched and shunned every product that could cause a quandry of values if we really faced what the company stands for, none of us would by anything. We'd all be consumer Jainists, sweeping the ground before us to make sure we didn't step on insects in our way. I give KD madprops not only for engaging the problem in a rational, well-thought out way; but for sharing the experience with a forum. This is a tricky topic that tends to degenerate; any attempt to go beyond black and white/with us or against us morality is IMHO not only welcome but also desperately necessary. 21 banana salute.
• Wow... this must be what it's like to have a big brother. Thank's for the back up Forks. I was growing weary.
• But I think this makes for a very interesting study in consumerism and political activism. This was the topic I was recently adressing which kimdog herself posted. why go to Curves in the first place? was (meant to be?) addressed in the way of that topic. By joining Curves, does that affect her activism in the non-profit (loss of morale high ground - like being called 'sell-out' etc.) I was curious of her stance on the 'shades of gray grey' she was willing to live with since she appears to be a stout activist, and what in the conversation with the FRANCHISE owner convinced her that this was an ultimately acceptable compromise with her ethics. I did get off topic with the 'language issue' and tried to steer it back to the posted topic. I'm not gunning for her (if the language appears such, it is due to my limited cognitive ability), just curious as to personal motivations and convictions on the topic since she seems to be well involved with the issues (re:Today) and active about it. The salon link is a reg-req'd to RTFA. none of us would b[u]y anything Would you by any chance be a cult leader? And to bugger it all, I still don't know what 'horrow' means.
• The SF Chronicle printed a retraction to the original story of Heavin's contributions. He also wrote that Heavin's recipients were allied with Operation Save America, a radical anti-abortion group. As stated in a May 4 clarification on Rosen's column, Operation Save America has praised those recipients on its Web site but does not provide financial support, nor does it have a formal alliance with them.