I was just reading some of Bryce's many recent (good!) posts and thinking about how both of us have sort of drifted into the same section of the blogosphere. For example, we are both big Andrew/Matthew/Ezra/Josh fans (too lazy to link, figure that one out fo yoself). As a result I often find myself reading something on a blog, thinking about commenting on it/linking to it/freaking out about it, and then...not doing any thing at all. Why? Many times I am thinking to myself that Bryce will probably end up doing it. Which is sort of one part laziness and one part competitiveness. Weird, I know.
I have also been thinking about needing to clean up the old blog roll as well, since I don't visit some of the stuff I have listed, while at the same time religiously visiting things that I don't even have linked. I'll do that later. More laziness.
These two thoughts sort of coalesced in my mind last night as I caught thirty seconds of Glenn Beck during a commercial break for the totally fantastic "Sex and the City" (funny "Sex and the City" story: when I first saw it many, many years ago with Maile in a hotel room I believed it to be a disturbing HBO show about high priced prostitutes). But I digress. My thought, as I watched Glenn in all his awkward "small business owner" glory, was "thank God for the internet." Because on the internet, unlike on my couch, there are many other people who find Glenn heinous and feel like discussing it at length. Usually while listening to good music! Watching Bryce evolve as a blogger and reflecting on how much I love blogs made me very thankful that I ever discovered blogs in the first place.
Like many of my best discoveries, the discovery of blogs was actually the result of my complex, intense, and sometimes sleazy relationship with radical feminism. In celebration of feminism, the internet, and feminist blogs, I give you my favorites:
1. Pandagon. Amanda is probably best known for her work with, and eventual dismissal from, the John Edwards campaign. What can I say, she has been known to swear like a sailor. And take on the Christian church. In an endearing sort of way. It's a shame that this is what made her (semi)famous. The truth is, she's probably the best at what she does. I haven't seen any stats, but I'd be surprised if this wasn't the largest feminist blog on the web. And rightfully so. Even when you disagree with her, Amanda always dishes out some of the best feminism has to offer: intellectual curiosity, a bs detector you can set your watch too, and a willingness to take on the hard stuff. Friend crush? You bet.
2. I Blame The Patriarchy. You just have too love Twisty. If Feministing is building a big tent, Twisty is undoubtedly the much more entertaining and dangerous sideshow. Twisty is feminism at its sharpest and most difficult. This stuff will change your life, unless it totally turns you off of the movement and you end up hating feminism forever. She scares me in a good way.
3. Feministing. Jessica and crew get points for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is her appearance on Stephen Colbert. Feministing, like Pandagon, is a big player. IMHO it has done a really good job of being both a mainstream feminist site and a multinational feminist site, which can be a tough line to walk. A good read.
4. Faux Real Tho. Lauren is possibly the mother of feminist blogging. Since leaving Feministe she has set up house over at Faux Real Tho. In feminism, the politcal is always personal. Unless the personal is political. Actually, we'll have to fight about that and get back to you. Lauren, better than any other person, weaves feminism into the narrative of her life. Blogging is much more an art than a science. It is part essay writing, part journalism, part diary, and part comics page. Like a good album, a blog must be balanced and engaging. Too much depth and it becomes inpenetrable, too much fluff and it's wasting your time. Lauren walks the line better than anyone else. And like many other young feminists, Lauren helped me to find my voice.
5. Feministe. It's just not the same since Lauren left. But Jill, Zuzu and company do a good job holding the place down. They have, without a doubt, one of the best graphics ever as their header. A little girl with a shotgun? I'm pretty sure that's how the define feminism in the Oxford. I'd like to see someone with a little more time step in over there, but it's still worth the read. Jill is going to make a great lawyer.
So there you have it. Let me know if you find something that makes you mad or catches your interest. And remember: play nice.
Feist- 1234. It's everywhere, I know. But it's proof that women can sell music without selling sex. And it's fantastic. And it makes me smile.
RIYL- Stars, Broken Social Scene, dream pop
Showing posts with label Feminism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Feminism. Show all posts
Thursday, April 03, 2008
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Like writing my thesis all over again.
Andrew links to a moving speech by Barack Obama about his stance on abortion that touches on both his relationship to voters and the role of faith in public life. As someone who identifies deeply as both an Evangelical and a feminist, abortion gives me fits. How anyone does not struggle with this issue, perhaps above all others, is beyond me.
Happily, this is just one more reminder about what has already been made abundantly clear: we need more of this type of honesty, humility, and reflection in our leaders. As Bryce is slowing down on the politics blogging, I'm just about to heat up.
Broken Social Scene- Looks Just Like the Sun
RIYL: Stars, Indie/Dream Pop, The Shins
I embedded this one as an extra incentive to listen. Sounds like summer.
Happily, this is just one more reminder about what has already been made abundantly clear: we need more of this type of honesty, humility, and reflection in our leaders. As Bryce is slowing down on the politics blogging, I'm just about to heat up.
Broken Social Scene- Looks Just Like the Sun
RIYL: Stars, Indie/Dream Pop, The Shins
I embedded this one as an extra incentive to listen. Sounds like summer.
Monday, October 15, 2007
Yessssssss.
Andrew (<3 huge blogger crush) can always be counted on for great links.
Today is no exception.
Did you know that feminists have better romantic relationships?
It's true.
What's crazy to me is that we are actually talking about this. Of course it's true.
But it's nice to have a little proof.
So here's a blogger question: How many of you would self-identify as feminists? That is to say, how many of you agree with basic feminist beliefs? Regardless of how you identify, how do you think it impacts your views on relationships/actual relationships?
I'm genuninely curious. I hope I get some responses. I might even write up a little response of my own.
Today is no exception.
Did you know that feminists have better romantic relationships?
It's true.
What's crazy to me is that we are actually talking about this. Of course it's true.
But it's nice to have a little proof.
So here's a blogger question: How many of you would self-identify as feminists? That is to say, how many of you agree with basic feminist beliefs? Regardless of how you identify, how do you think it impacts your views on relationships/actual relationships?
I'm genuninely curious. I hope I get some responses. I might even write up a little response of my own.
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
Feminism: Helping me to procrastinate talking about my 80 miles in the desert.
Thanks feminism!
This is yet one more fantastic present brought to you by the one and only Andrew Sullivan. I love him more and more all the time. Except for when I disagree with him completely.
It's not the shortest article ever written, but I highly recommend it if you have a few minutes to spare. Come on, you know you do. The article is a reflection piece written by Megan Stack, a writer and bureau chief for the Los Angeles Times, looking back on her time spent in Saudi Arabia and her place there as a woman.
What first caught my attention to the piece was the combination of feminism and Andrew's criticism of Starbucks:
"The multinational company acquiesces in and enforces the oppression and segregation of women."
And it is more than a valid point. Would you still shop at a company that served African Americans in the back? What about a company that wouldn't let Jews in the front door? Of course not. The greatest argument for the existence of feminism is the fact that my friends who work at Starbucks will not immediately quit their jobs, and many of you reading will still go and buy a latte there. Of course the issue is not that simple, but stop and let this sink in: we will still go to Starbucks, a company that won't serve half of the population in the same way as the other half. They still do business, and make a profit, in Saudi Arabia. The parallels to Jim Crow, apartheid, and Nazi Germany are more than uncomfortably close. It is both tremendously sad and unbelievably revolting.
And clearly my pleasure at seeing a little Starbucks bashing was anything but secret.
There is a question I must ask myself in this as well. I don't shop at Starbucks or drink their coffee, but am I blameless? If I have chided Starbucks as a company who will gladly look the other way in the face of sexism, is Just Coffee, my coffee company of choice, able to withstand the same scrutiny? Sadly, I believe that the answer is a very complicated "sort of."
Just Coffee, in all honesty, is a company of men. It is not a company of all male employees, but it is a company of all male owners. Why is that? Well, it really boils down to gender roles in Chiapas. Men are the coffee farmers, simple as that. This is not true in all parts of the world (where women farmers greatly outnumber men), but it is true in Chiapas. Women help at times, but are more likely to be found preparing food, caring for children, or working around the house. So even though these women benefit from the higher price and health benefits that come from Just Coffee, they don't really have a voice at the table in terms of voting. They don't really come to the meetings of the directors. That's not to say that they don't have a "presence" (any married person will tell you that's simply not possible), but that's sort of the same argument that is used in the article to say that women don't need to be able to vote in state elections. Not very comforting, I know.
Does this mean that I don't support Just Coffee? Well, no, not at all. I still love the people, the company, the coffee, and the model. Reality, as always, is more complicated than theory. The business of living in Chiapas requires more intentional effort than it does here. More time cooking and cleaning and all of that good stuff. Life is a partnership, and the contributions of women are tremendously important. And in the face of migration, gender lines become more than a little bit blurred. Once again, this is clearly not a simple issue. Ask any feminist about the tension between cultural sensitivity and women's rights and you'll see the blood start to quicken in their veins.
Culture, history, and economics, all embedded with some degree of sexism, have come together to make men the coffee farmers in Chiapas. Is that wrong? Not necessarily. The goal must never be to tell all people what to do, but to increase their ability to make good choices freely. But it would be better if women had more choices, and especially if they had more say. What is my repsonsibility to try and make that more of a reality? I'm not sure about that either. But I think it is important to ask these questions, and to be honest when things make us uncomfortable. I think this issue pales in comparison to Starbucks in Saudi Arabia, but it is by no means a non-issue. It is important, however, to call a good thing a good thing. Starbucks health benefits in the U.S. are a good thing. And Just Coffee is a good thing. But so is honest self-reflection.
Feminism is a great thing.
The desert post and pictures are coming. I promise.
This is yet one more fantastic present brought to you by the one and only Andrew Sullivan. I love him more and more all the time. Except for when I disagree with him completely.
It's not the shortest article ever written, but I highly recommend it if you have a few minutes to spare. Come on, you know you do. The article is a reflection piece written by Megan Stack, a writer and bureau chief for the Los Angeles Times, looking back on her time spent in Saudi Arabia and her place there as a woman.
What first caught my attention to the piece was the combination of feminism and Andrew's criticism of Starbucks:
"The multinational company acquiesces in and enforces the oppression and segregation of women."
And it is more than a valid point. Would you still shop at a company that served African Americans in the back? What about a company that wouldn't let Jews in the front door? Of course not. The greatest argument for the existence of feminism is the fact that my friends who work at Starbucks will not immediately quit their jobs, and many of you reading will still go and buy a latte there. Of course the issue is not that simple, but stop and let this sink in: we will still go to Starbucks, a company that won't serve half of the population in the same way as the other half. They still do business, and make a profit, in Saudi Arabia. The parallels to Jim Crow, apartheid, and Nazi Germany are more than uncomfortably close. It is both tremendously sad and unbelievably revolting.
And clearly my pleasure at seeing a little Starbucks bashing was anything but secret.
There is a question I must ask myself in this as well. I don't shop at Starbucks or drink their coffee, but am I blameless? If I have chided Starbucks as a company who will gladly look the other way in the face of sexism, is Just Coffee, my coffee company of choice, able to withstand the same scrutiny? Sadly, I believe that the answer is a very complicated "sort of."
Just Coffee, in all honesty, is a company of men. It is not a company of all male employees, but it is a company of all male owners. Why is that? Well, it really boils down to gender roles in Chiapas. Men are the coffee farmers, simple as that. This is not true in all parts of the world (where women farmers greatly outnumber men), but it is true in Chiapas. Women help at times, but are more likely to be found preparing food, caring for children, or working around the house. So even though these women benefit from the higher price and health benefits that come from Just Coffee, they don't really have a voice at the table in terms of voting. They don't really come to the meetings of the directors. That's not to say that they don't have a "presence" (any married person will tell you that's simply not possible), but that's sort of the same argument that is used in the article to say that women don't need to be able to vote in state elections. Not very comforting, I know.
Does this mean that I don't support Just Coffee? Well, no, not at all. I still love the people, the company, the coffee, and the model. Reality, as always, is more complicated than theory. The business of living in Chiapas requires more intentional effort than it does here. More time cooking and cleaning and all of that good stuff. Life is a partnership, and the contributions of women are tremendously important. And in the face of migration, gender lines become more than a little bit blurred. Once again, this is clearly not a simple issue. Ask any feminist about the tension between cultural sensitivity and women's rights and you'll see the blood start to quicken in their veins.
Culture, history, and economics, all embedded with some degree of sexism, have come together to make men the coffee farmers in Chiapas. Is that wrong? Not necessarily. The goal must never be to tell all people what to do, but to increase their ability to make good choices freely. But it would be better if women had more choices, and especially if they had more say. What is my repsonsibility to try and make that more of a reality? I'm not sure about that either. But I think it is important to ask these questions, and to be honest when things make us uncomfortable. I think this issue pales in comparison to Starbucks in Saudi Arabia, but it is by no means a non-issue. It is important, however, to call a good thing a good thing. Starbucks health benefits in the U.S. are a good thing. And Just Coffee is a good thing. But so is honest self-reflection.
Feminism is a great thing.
The desert post and pictures are coming. I promise.
Tuesday, April 03, 2007
"I'm from Rhodesia mate"
The economy of Mugabe's Zimbabwe has entered what one long term observer is calling its "death throes."
What does that mean exactly?
Two figures that stand out:
80% unemployment
1,700% inflation
Sadly, Zimbabwe is one of the most well educated countries in Africa.
Those two figures alone are shocking, but this is the clincher:
In a continent of scandalously low life expectancies, Zimbabwe now has the lowest.
37 years old for men.
34 years old for women. (women are more likely to be infected with HIV)
That's the bad news. What are we doing to change it?
In the photo (Reuters): A woman holds up a U.S. ten dollar bill, and the current equivalent in Zimbabwe dollars.
Friday, March 23, 2007
Evangelical + Progressive + Radical + Loving = Sexiness
If you've ever thought: I'm way too conservative to be a "liberal," but there's no way I'm a Republican. It's really dumb that the same people who get so worked up over abortion don't seem to have a problem with the death penalty at all. Those both seem like pretty bad ideas.
I want something different for my life. I want my life to be like the book of Acts, not like The Real World.
Women make really great leaders.
Drinking, smoking, and swearing seem like really silly reasons to send someone to hell.
Secular progressives really don't get me. Christian conservatives? I think they get me even less. Neither of them speak for me.
I really want to live faithfully, but sometimes it seems like the system is stacked against me. What does it mean to love people when I buy shoes? Go to my job? Decide where to live?
I like my sketchers, but I LOVE my Prada backpack.*
I wish that there were more singers/preachers/authors/prophets/leaders like Bart Campolo/Shane Claiborne/Rob Bell/Anne Lammott/Donald Miller/Derek Webb.
It's not my revolution if I can't dance to it.
Sex is so much more important than my friends make it out to be.
Fighting gay/lesbian/bi/trans/queer people just doesn't feel like love.
It's so great how many amazing people I know who love Jesus, love people, and are changing the world because of it.
If you've ever thought any of those things, then I have a confession to make: So have I. Cool, huh?
And apparently so have a whole bunch of other people. Read this article. It's long, but it's very very important.
Did you read the article? Because that was the whole purpose of this post. Seriously.Read it.
Something Bryce posted got me thinking about the problem that we as thoughtful/progressive/evangelical/radical/beautiful/sexual/intellectual/artistic followers of Jesus have. Well, it's several problems really, but mostly it's an image problem. People just do not understand how many of us there really are, what we believe in, or what we are trying to accomplish.
Secular progressives, perhaps rightfully so, get freaked out and run the first time they hear the word Jesus. Ditto for religious folks of a different faith. Kudos to AlterNet for posting this. Secular progressives complimenting suburban Christians can only be called miraculous. If you say evangelical to any one of my secular friends from Pomona, you would get a negative response. Or they wouldn't know what you meant. That's not a good sign.
"Traditional" evangelicals/Christians think that we're a bunch of tree-hugging hippies who have cast our lot in with the devil and his kin. To be fair, some of us are tree loving hippies. Sorry Erik, you'll just have to live with it. The positions that some of us hold (Bart Campolo: Gay marriage is good, Donald Miller: post-modern thought is good, Jim Wallis: Jesus cares about the environment) are so foreign to people like Dobson and Ralph Reed that we may as well not be Christians. When pressed, they might agree that we aren't.
And finally, "we" isn't really a we. This article makes it seem like there is an "us," but there really isn't. It's a BIG tent. Reading Relevant does not mean that you read Sojourners. Liking Donald Miller does not mean that you think American global capitalism has serious problems. Going to a church with women in leadership does not mean that you think that gay marriage is ok. On the whole, I think that all of that is good. Clearly it's important to have beliefs. But it's also important not to exclude people for holding well thought out, faithful positions, that aren't your own. Jesus probably loves them too. But that puts us in a classic progressive bind. How do you make people who have a lot in common feel like they are connected, powerful, and influential (which they are) without resorting to essentialist tendencies (ex: you must believe x,y, and z or you just aren't with us)? Last year Bart Campolo said, more or less, that he doesn't believe in a God who sends people to hell. If evangelicals could excommunicate, he would no longer be welcome to communion. In some places he probably isn't. So obviously we have some issues. But we have a lot more promise. More and more churches across the country are being transformed in ways that are very, very good. I am having more and more conversations with people who are involved in completely amazing grassroots action, willing the kingdom into being by the sheer force of their love. But I don't think any of us has really realized yet how many people are having these conversations. Am I excited? You bet I am.
Are you in?
Thanks to Zach Exley for writing this. I've been thinking it for years.
Thanks to Zach Lind for posting this link over at Finding Rhythm. P.S.- Zach is the drummer for Jimmy Eat World. You're right, he IS the man.
Thanks to all of you for being revolutionaries in a whole bunch of ways. The world is changing.
(In the photo: Tony Campolo gets his preach on)
*Ok, I haven't thought that. But I do love Ten Things I Hate About You.
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Slate: Stalking Is the New Flirting.
From Slate: A photo series of flirting called "How You Doin'?" Sounds like it could be kind of fun, right?
Check it out here: http://todayspictures.slate.com/howyoudo/
Anything strike you as odd?
I can't be the only one who finds it odd that MOST of those pictures aren't even of flirting. That leaves me thinking that a) someone did a pretty poor job choosing the pictures, b) someone did a pretty poor job labeling the piece, or c) someone's idea of flirting is a room full of men staring at a model, or two men on the street gawking at the legs of a woman who doesn't even know that she's being watched.
See: This picture
It's really creepy to me that so many of these pictures aren't flirting at all, but rather men caught in the act of staring at women who are wearing somewhat revealing clothing.
Is that what passes for flirting at Slate? In America?
Check it out here: http://todayspictures.slate.com/howyoudo/
Anything strike you as odd?
I can't be the only one who finds it odd that MOST of those pictures aren't even of flirting. That leaves me thinking that a) someone did a pretty poor job choosing the pictures, b) someone did a pretty poor job labeling the piece, or c) someone's idea of flirting is a room full of men staring at a model, or two men on the street gawking at the legs of a woman who doesn't even know that she's being watched.
See: This picture
It's really creepy to me that so many of these pictures aren't flirting at all, but rather men caught in the act of staring at women who are wearing somewhat revealing clothing.
Is that what passes for flirting at Slate? In America?
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
That's A Nice Reminder
So I've been going a little bit crazy lately. I feel like my work is all out of sorts and I have been spending A LOT of annoying time on the phone with tech support companies.
I still feel that way, but stopping to play this game helped my perspective quite a bit.
Sim Sweatshop. Check it out. www.simsweatshop.com (link's aren't working for me again. My main problem with blooger.)
I still feel that way, but stopping to play this game helped my perspective quite a bit.
Sim Sweatshop. Check it out. www.simsweatshop.com (link's aren't working for me again. My main problem with blooger.)
Thursday, January 25, 2007
My Boxer Briefs Are Sweatfree
Last week I was really out of underwear.
I got to the point where I had worn through a few old pairs, left a good set in Chiapas, and needed to make the investment that every man I know tries desperately to put off, new underwear.
I had made it my goal to, if at all possible, meet this need without resorting to buying something that could have been made in a sweatshop. I'm equally unimpressed with companies that manufacture goods at rock-bottom wages, but not in what is technically a sweatshop, and then jack up the price on us. In this instance, however, I was simply looking to avoid anything possibly made in a sweatshop.
In a town like Douglas, AZ (as in most places in America), looking for a product not potentially made in a sweatshop was pretty much impossible, which sent me straight to the internet. Unsure of where to begin, I started my search for fair-trade underwear with a little trip to google.
My query of "sweatshop free boxer briefs" yielded "about" 19,900 results, the very first of which was the promising looking Justice Clothing.
Following that link brought me to http://www.justiceclothing.com/thereis/justice/lw20300.html (sorry, links aren't working for me again), which, sure enough, was a site where I could order a union made (in Pottstown, PA no less!) three pack of white, grey, or black boxer briefs, in my choice of size, and have them shipped right to my door.
That was pretty dang easy. And, sadly enough, quite costly. My three brand new boxer briefs cost me $21.00 plus $5.05 more for shipping and handling. "Ouch," I thought.
But then I checked it out.
Lowest of the low cost (so we are told) walmart.com had a four pack of boxer briefs for $15.34 plus $3.94 for shipping and handling.
Target was even worse, charging 9.99 for EACH boxer brief (less for Euro-trunks, but that's not something I'm prepared to wear), and offering me free shipping if I bought three. Thanks for the free shipping on my $30.00 of cotton!
Ok, let's do the math here.
Target's boxer briefs were obviously $9.99 each (provided you buy three, which is what I wanted).
Wal-Mart, including shipping and handling, came out to $4.82 per boxer brief for a pack of four.
My three boxer briefs from Justice Clothing/Lifewear (complete with a seriously so much better horizontal fly) cost me $8.68 cents each. If I had ordered more packs the price would have dropped even further.
So here's what we've got:
Target: $10.00, nice store aesthetics and clever advertisements, clear supporter of sweatshop labor, and marginal to bad employee pay.
Wal-Mart: $4.82, terrible shopping experience, proven price gouging, terrible employee pay and benefits, clear supporter of sweatshop labor.
Justice Clothing: $8.68, easy to use site, good pay and benefits for their employees, committed to fighting sweatshop labor.
To me the choice is very clear.
Even better than avoiding sweatshop labor was finding a company that I feel good about supporting. Justice Clothing, if you take a look, has a whole range of products at pretty affordable prices, especially when you consider that they are actually compensating their employees for their labor. How novel of them.
This whole exercise makes me that much more committed to using my money as a force for positive change, instead of just using it, as I say, "to do no harm." What I mean is that rather than trying to avoid making purchasing and lifestyle choices at places where I think that other people are paying a high cost for the price I receive, I intend to seek out purchases that help people to empower themselves. My experience with boxer briefs shows just how easy, simple, and cost-competitive that can be.
Next time you need something (anything), try looking for it on google first. Put in your ideal product (an environmentally friendly stove cleaner, for example) and see what happens. I think you'll be surprised. Even if it costs you a little bit more money, I think it's worth it. Try it, and let me know what you find.
*As another aside, most retail companies provide pictures of their products, on real people, when you shop online (see link to Justice Clothing). Needless to say, it proved to be somewhat awkward trying to buy boxer briefs at the office.*
I got to the point where I had worn through a few old pairs, left a good set in Chiapas, and needed to make the investment that every man I know tries desperately to put off, new underwear.
I had made it my goal to, if at all possible, meet this need without resorting to buying something that could have been made in a sweatshop. I'm equally unimpressed with companies that manufacture goods at rock-bottom wages, but not in what is technically a sweatshop, and then jack up the price on us. In this instance, however, I was simply looking to avoid anything possibly made in a sweatshop.
In a town like Douglas, AZ (as in most places in America), looking for a product not potentially made in a sweatshop was pretty much impossible, which sent me straight to the internet. Unsure of where to begin, I started my search for fair-trade underwear with a little trip to google.
My query of "sweatshop free boxer briefs" yielded "about" 19,900 results, the very first of which was the promising looking Justice Clothing.
Following that link brought me to http://www.justiceclothing.com/thereis/justice/lw20300.html (sorry, links aren't working for me again), which, sure enough, was a site where I could order a union made (in Pottstown, PA no less!) three pack of white, grey, or black boxer briefs, in my choice of size, and have them shipped right to my door.
That was pretty dang easy. And, sadly enough, quite costly. My three brand new boxer briefs cost me $21.00 plus $5.05 more for shipping and handling. "Ouch," I thought.
But then I checked it out.
Lowest of the low cost (so we are told) walmart.com had a four pack of boxer briefs for $15.34 plus $3.94 for shipping and handling.
Target was even worse, charging 9.99 for EACH boxer brief (less for Euro-trunks, but that's not something I'm prepared to wear), and offering me free shipping if I bought three. Thanks for the free shipping on my $30.00 of cotton!
Ok, let's do the math here.
Target's boxer briefs were obviously $9.99 each (provided you buy three, which is what I wanted).
Wal-Mart, including shipping and handling, came out to $4.82 per boxer brief for a pack of four.
My three boxer briefs from Justice Clothing/Lifewear (complete with a seriously so much better horizontal fly) cost me $8.68 cents each. If I had ordered more packs the price would have dropped even further.
So here's what we've got:
Target: $10.00, nice store aesthetics and clever advertisements, clear supporter of sweatshop labor, and marginal to bad employee pay.
Wal-Mart: $4.82, terrible shopping experience, proven price gouging, terrible employee pay and benefits, clear supporter of sweatshop labor.
Justice Clothing: $8.68, easy to use site, good pay and benefits for their employees, committed to fighting sweatshop labor.
To me the choice is very clear.
Even better than avoiding sweatshop labor was finding a company that I feel good about supporting. Justice Clothing, if you take a look, has a whole range of products at pretty affordable prices, especially when you consider that they are actually compensating their employees for their labor. How novel of them.
This whole exercise makes me that much more committed to using my money as a force for positive change, instead of just using it, as I say, "to do no harm." What I mean is that rather than trying to avoid making purchasing and lifestyle choices at places where I think that other people are paying a high cost for the price I receive, I intend to seek out purchases that help people to empower themselves. My experience with boxer briefs shows just how easy, simple, and cost-competitive that can be.
Next time you need something (anything), try looking for it on google first. Put in your ideal product (an environmentally friendly stove cleaner, for example) and see what happens. I think you'll be surprised. Even if it costs you a little bit more money, I think it's worth it. Try it, and let me know what you find.
*As another aside, most retail companies provide pictures of their products, on real people, when you shop online (see link to Justice Clothing). Needless to say, it proved to be somewhat awkward trying to buy boxer briefs at the office.*
Friday, December 01, 2006
World Aids Day
Just a little reminder that today is World Aids Day. I can't help but think about the people I met in Uganda living with Aids, or widowed/orphaned by the disease, or about Project Angel Food, a Los Angeles non-profit that cooks and delivers nutritious meals to people living with HIV/Aids.
What is especially tragic on this World Aids Day is that HIV/Aids, contrary to many predictions just a few years ago, is still spreading unabated. Estimates today are that 40 million people around the world are living with the disease. Well, 40 million people around the world have HIV/Aids. The ones who can afford the treatments or who are fortunate enough to receive them free are living with it, the rest are dying from it. And this number neglects the millions of orphaned children like those I met in Uganda and Rwanda who. It also fails to capture the incredible social burden that the loss of generations of people has on everyone living in a society.
Sadly, even though a great deal of progress has been made, HIV/Aids is still largely linked to gender in most parts of the world. Although I suspect that many people, and probably many Americans, still associate it with homosexuality, the reality is that the burden of HIV/Aids is largely carried by women and young girls. An article in the Times today (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/01/world/africa/01madagascar.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin) highlights the persistance of child sexual abuse in Sub-Saharan Africa, and its role in spreading the disease. This same risk is shared by married women, sex-workers (both enslaved and not), and women living in conflict zones, where rape is often used as a weapon of war, as it was in the Rwandan genocide, and is currently being used against women and girls in Northern Uganda and Southern Sudan.
I'm trying to decide what my pro-active choice is going to be today to combat this disease. I'm considering a donation to The ONE Campaign or to World Vision, although I have not decided ultimately where it will go. Please consider giving money today, and every day if possible. The task ahead of us is great, but the consequences far greater if we do nothing at all.
What is especially tragic on this World Aids Day is that HIV/Aids, contrary to many predictions just a few years ago, is still spreading unabated. Estimates today are that 40 million people around the world are living with the disease. Well, 40 million people around the world have HIV/Aids. The ones who can afford the treatments or who are fortunate enough to receive them free are living with it, the rest are dying from it. And this number neglects the millions of orphaned children like those I met in Uganda and Rwanda who. It also fails to capture the incredible social burden that the loss of generations of people has on everyone living in a society.
Sadly, even though a great deal of progress has been made, HIV/Aids is still largely linked to gender in most parts of the world. Although I suspect that many people, and probably many Americans, still associate it with homosexuality, the reality is that the burden of HIV/Aids is largely carried by women and young girls. An article in the Times today (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/01/world/africa/01madagascar.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin) highlights the persistance of child sexual abuse in Sub-Saharan Africa, and its role in spreading the disease. This same risk is shared by married women, sex-workers (both enslaved and not), and women living in conflict zones, where rape is often used as a weapon of war, as it was in the Rwandan genocide, and is currently being used against women and girls in Northern Uganda and Southern Sudan.
I'm trying to decide what my pro-active choice is going to be today to combat this disease. I'm considering a donation to The ONE Campaign or to World Vision, although I have not decided ultimately where it will go. Please consider giving money today, and every day if possible. The task ahead of us is great, but the consequences far greater if we do nothing at all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
