canvasShoes, there is some element of truth to what you are saying. On balance, I do not hold to the position that anyone is having his or her rights trampled on.
As you quote a portion of my posts to ask why folks are having such strong opinions on this matter, I will assume that I am one of the culprits, and try to answer.
Basically, while this particular event seems more or less devoid of harm, I have a particular problem with the group that brought it in to being.
I recognize that some of this is arrived at from my own political bias, but the fact is that my thoughts on the matter are that groups such as the one that made this happen should be balked at every turn.
To be sure, at times this can take the form of throwing the baby out with the bath water. All of that being said, I guess that I have a problem with these Christian family values type organizations getting their way ever. It may well point out a blind spot that I have, but the truth is that I would probably not have anywhere near the objections that I have if (for example) it was a radical lesbian separatist group that managed to make the same thing happen.
On the other hand long as they dont stop selling the Globe and those rags… I always pull them out and read them to the other people standing in line with me:D
Am I the only one who walks throught that wharehouse thinking “Never before in the history of mankind have so many been able to buy so much JUNK at such great prices”
I did? Sorry, I was really just asking the question out of curiousity. I’m surprised that so many people have such strong opinions over what seems a simple thing. And doesn’t appear to be a taking away of any sort of rights.
My question was basically:
How does the covering of magazine covers take away someone else’s rights
How does covering the covers force someone else’s religious, (or just plain personal preferences) down others’ throats?
Huh, I’ll be darned. Why are you against christian family values? (I can see why you’d be against the “moral majority” over the top radical type morons, I’m a christian [non-denominational, non[organized religion affiliated] myself and I’M against those sorts).
I don’t know what groups were involved in getting walmart to change this. One of the other posters said it was the customers. I pretty much took that at face value, but (I might have missed it) I didn’t see a link as to who the “culprits” were.
I guess another question would be…
Why does a group trying to keep either little eyes, or those eyes that would prefer not to be confronted, from seeing things they might not be quite ready for have to mean that said group is “Christian Family Values Zealots”?
Can’t a group request a “cleaner” (for lack of a better word, sorry it’s late, blonde brain is fading fast:)), atmosphere without it having to have a religious connotation?
Barbarian *who has been wearing the same Slaves on Dope T-shirt since he bought it an all-ages show at the YMCA in Pointe-Claire, before their first album came out. And it still looks brand new. *
As for WalMart, I think the main problem isn’t that they listen to their customers. It’s that they listen to the minority of their customers who believe that censorship is a good thing.
I can understand people wanting to impose their morality on others-- but quite frankly, I think my inclusive, pro-body acceptance, pro-sex, pro-local well-paying jobs morality is better than that espoused by the American Family Association.
But maybe that’s just because I think if the Taliban spoke English, the AFA and all other so-called “Christian Family Value” groups would be supporting them whole-heartedly.
CanvasShoes, I am not against Christian family values as such, although you have to admit that this particular term has been hijacked by the so called moral majority and so has different connotations than perhaps it could. Although I personally fall somewhere between Agnostic and Atheist, I am not opposed to folks attempting to live according to the teachings of Christ (for that matter, I am sure the world would be a better place if folks actually did this).
However, the group that brought this particular event in to being is very challenging for me. (see their website here). They seem to stand for a lot of things that I find repugnant. That is where I start to have issues. This was not a bunch of customers that got together in a grassroots sort of way, rather (as far as I can tell) a Christian Right political group with an agenda.
Naturally, my earlier statements about my own political blind spots still apply.
It’s likely that covering the covers will affect sales. But which way?
Will the lack of instant visual titillation reduce the sales?
If so, WalMart has to balance their decision against the potential increase in goodwill and/or sales by the groups that complained in the first place.
Or will the covering, which says, “Look at me, the censor thinks you will be aroused!” cause an INCREASE in sales?
If so, then WalMart has their cake and can eat it too – Christian groups are happier, and sales go up.
I wonder which theory is behind Walmart’s decision. In either case, I call it chickenshit – or to bastardize a quote from Walt Kelly, “Quivering with courage, WalMart bowed to their demands…”
Can you really not tell the difference between a monolithic political organization that has a Right wing agenda vs. a bunch of folks that shop at a local store trying to get some changes made? Did you look at the website of these folks?
Don’t get me wrong; I understand that organizations are comprised of actual people, and that those people are also at times customers. The difference, as I see it, is in the scope and reach of an organization or a group of concerned local folks.
Seriously, what’s the difference? When does grassroots work transform into a “monolithic political organization?” Is grassroots work OK only so long as it doesn’t become too successful?
Whatever power the AFA has is pretty much solely due to its membership. Those people have elected to participate in a national organization because they see that as being the most effective vehicle with which to communicate their concerns. I fail utterly to see any difference between that and, say, national “smart growth” advocacy groups that sprung from local grassroots efforts, other than your particular distaste for the agenda they’re pushing.
Dewey, this is starting to feel like you are baiting me. I have been 100% up front about my bias here. What more do you want?
To attempt to respond to the differences that I see between a grassroots effort vs. what I see happened here; again, I think that it is a matter of scale. To me, when I think of a grassroots movement, I think of local folks that are attempting to change something in their own community. On the other end of that spectrum, there are national or global groups that are attempting to change things at the national or even planetary level.
So, are you with me so far? You can see that these are two different things, right?
In any event, at some point of success a grassroots movement will begin to transform in to a more monolithic one. I really can’t tell you what that magical point is, but I know it when I see it. Also, I don’t think that I have been saying that this particular group is somehow different from others that have sprung from grassroots level and made it big.
So, what exactly is your problem here? I have stated in black and white that I despise this particular group and others like it and that my sentiment is that they should be stymied in their every effort. If you wish to defend this particular group, or their agenda please just do so.
Your initial comment implied that everything would be hunky-dory if this was a local group of citizens trying to change conditions at their local store. It sounded a lot like if 1,000 independent local groups tried to change policy at 1,000 individual stores, you’d be fine with that, but the minute those groups start banding together you’d suddenly find them to be evil incarnate. Which is a bit silly: you’re basically saying you don’t mind if groups you despise organize and protest, so long as they choose fragmented and ineffectual means of doing so.
I get that you don’t like this group and that you disagree with what they stand for. OK, fine. But if a group’s goals are nefarious, they are no less nefarious for being a small group. I fail to see why the same arguments you find unacceptable at the national level suddenly carry some measure of currency at the local level.
Good point! I guess that’s the sort of thing I was looking for when I asked what I did. I couldn’t think for the life of me WHY it would matter if they were covered, if they were still available.
True, it’s possible that those who buy on impulse might not be tempted.
If I’m stuck at the checkstand, I’ll look behind the little wooden cover anyway, just to see what silly orgasm story they have that month. The “cover covers” don’t bother me at all.
When I first started seeing them, I just thought they were kindof along the same lines as paying attention to what your kids watch on tv, a bit of protection for those not quite ready for what the magazines (and over G ratings movies etc) have to offer.
That issue, for me, gets a bit complicated. I think that a lot of it has to do with my idea that a local group is going to be in tune with the local customs, values and all around tone whereas a national or global group will not enjoy the same level of being in touch. My position basically is that each community should have the right to plot their own way.
This is not to say that the national group cannot have members at the local lever (their membership, after all, must come from somewhere). However, I think that it is at this point that unbalanced influence can start to rear its ugly head.
If a couple of nuts (locally) want to change something that no one else really cares about, they are more apt to be ignored than anything. However, if they suddenly have a large group behind them than it seems to me that they begin to wield power that is disproportionate. I also have concerns that successes in pushing these sorts of things through give these large groups a legitimacy that is problematic, and ultimately dangerous.
So in some ways, yes, I have a lot less problem with 1000 local groups attempting to change things at 1000 local stores than I do with one big group trying to change things at 1000 local stores.
And again, always keep in mind that my thoughts on this are definitely colored by this particular group that we have been talking about. I get that this is a blind spot, but at least can see that it is there. If I had my way, family values right wing Christian groups would never ever get their way.
