About Rationally Speaking


Rationally Speaking is a blog maintained by Prof. Massimo Pigliucci, a philosopher at the City University of New York. The blog reflects the Enlightenment figure Marquis de Condorcet's idea of what a public intellectual (yes, we know, that's such a bad word) ought to be: someone who devotes himself to "the tracking down of prejudices in the hiding places where priests, the schools, the government, and all long-established institutions had gathered and protected them." You're welcome. Please notice that the contents of this blog can be reprinted under the standard Creative Commons license.

Wednesday, October 19, 2005

Conservatives target "American Girl," go buy one now!

One of the classic characteristics of fundamentalist ideology is that any opinion contrasting with the rigid ideological line is not just to be criticized, if possible it has to be outlawed, or at least driven out of the market of ideas by whatever means.

That is exactly why some conservative organizations (e.g., the Mississippi-based American Family Association and the Chicago-based Pro-Life Action League) are considering boycotting "American Girls," a very popular line of dolls produced by a subsidiary of Mattel (see ABC News segment). This is rather surprising, since American Girl has until now been favorably regarded by conservatives, because of the often patriotic flavor of several of their dolls (e.g., their historical series, featuring Felicity, from the Revolutionary War, and Addy, who escapes from slavery during the Civil War).

But this time American Girl went into the other direction, by supporting "Girls Inc.," an organization established in Connecticut in 1864, which sponsors initiatives to help young girls -- mostly from low-income Black or Latino families -- to improve their math skills, self-esteem, and athletic skills. Clearly, these aren't "family" values, are they?

Well, the trouble, according to the conservatives calling for the boycott, is that Girls Inc. is also an advocacy group which defends the Roe vs. Wade abortion decision by the Supreme Court, doesn't limit its sexual education to "abstinence only" programs, and -- God forbid! -- is actually tolerant of lesbians.

As Randy Sharp, of the conservative American Family Association (because, as is well known, if you ain't conservative you ain't American or pro-family), put it eloquently, if sickeningly: "American Girl has won the trust of millions of conservative families, it's very popular among the home school movement because of the values the company followed. Now we find they're teaming up with Girls Inc., which supports the very things we oppose. It's very troubling."

Indeed, it is very troubling to see that conservative ideology is intrinsically incapable of tolerance. Please, do go to the nearest toy store and buy an American Girl! I've got to go, I need to pick one up for my daughter.

14 comments:

  1. Well, I can see where the conservatives are coming from on this issue, and why they are intolerant of "tolerance".

    Back in my days of Opus Dei schooling, we were taught this simple principle: in order for something to be morally good, it has to be completely morally good. If something has any taint of moral evil whatsoever, then it's morally evil. Period.

    So it doesn't matter how many good things the American Girl dolls have going in their favor. The minute that the manufacturer embraces something the least bit "evil", buying the dolls becomes evil too because it supports the evil manufacturer, etc.

    And actually, consider a parallel situation on the "other side". What if you found out that the publishing company of this great liberal freethought magazine you liked had started contributing to a pro-Palestinian organization that, as part of its "outreach", published and distributed virulently antisemitic literature. Would you keep buying the magazine? I wouldn't. Even if there were no obvious antisemitism in its articles, you would know that some small part of your subscription money was being used to slander Jews.

    ReplyDelete
  2. How do these conservatives sleep at night? Girls Inc. is promoting a program that will help keep poor, minority teenage girls out of trouble, less likely to get involved with drugs or become pregnant. The program will improve their self esteem along with their math and science skills. Cut the program, and I bet those girls will have more time on their hands for immoral behavior. There will be no "winners" here.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The simple fact is they don't want those particular girls to succeed or say out of trouble. Those girl's failure is the "compassionate conservative's" ticket to point out that they are not worth either the trouble or the financial investment, thus further condemning poor, ethnic minorities.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Here's a task for someone: check back in 1 year and see if the boycott was effective.
    My first thought on reading the same article that MP mentions was the same as his... I should go out and buy a doll to counter the CCR (conservative christian right). But the only child in my extended family right now is a great-nephew and I'm not going to give him an American Girl doll (sorry MP, I'm not that liberated yet) and I'm not going to buy one just to make a point. And as I thought about it, I concluded much as adrienne did that they had every right NOT to buy something that they were dissatisfied with. I think they are silly and misguided but I want the right to NOT buy certain products so I have to accord them the same right. In the long run, I have to wonder if the boycott will actually work. Is this something that enough doll buyers will get fired up over? Or will it be like Ceasar Chavez's grape boycott... a 30 year fizzle?

    Eat well, stay fit, Die Anyway!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Adrienne, "die anyway,"

    let me make clear that I most certainly was _not_ suggesting that people don't have the right to "vote with their pocketbooks," as they say. Of course I do the same. My point was that the specific complaints are flimsy and misguided, regardless of what Cal says (as usual, I might add :)

    As for the example of a freethought magazine partially promoting anti-semitism, I would probably write a letter to the editor, but would think really hard before actually halting the subscription. What distinguishes liberalism from conservatism is the tolerance for ideas with which we disagree. Heck, I support the KKK's right to march in the streets, if they insist in doing so!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Massimo wrote:

    What distinguishes liberalism from conservatism is the tolerance for ideas with which we disagree.

    Not if you believe what the ultra-liberal Stanley Fish has to say.

    Heck, I support the KKK's right to march in the streets, if they insist in doing so!

    I do too, but I also believe that tolerance has to have some limits.

    The problem with unending tolerance is that you end up tolerating people who are themselves intolerant. And what happens if and when the intolerant end up taking over?

    I mean, to *some* extent, I tolerate strict Muslims immigrating to the US who believe that women should be subordinate to men. But I would draw the line at the point where such immigrants start to become politically powerful and start enacting Sharia law and restrictions against women. Then, it's time to stop tolerating, IMHO, and restrict immigration of such individuals.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Adrienne,

    good points, as usual. Yes, I agree that tolerance has to have a limit. One ought to be intolerant of intolerance, which makes it troublesome to have fundamentalist views in a liberal society, if they imply as a goal the elimination of any alternative viewpoint (one can be a fundamentalist in her own life without necessarily wanting to impose it on the rest of society, see the Amish).

    I'll amend my definition of (reasonable) liberalism accordingly. By the way, elsewhere I have actually made the point that even a liberal/progressive can be intransigent ("fundamentalist") about something, and that the refusal to consider alternative opinions is never a good trait.

    As Aristotle said: "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

    ReplyDelete
  8. Massimo wrote:

    By the way, elsewhere I have actually made the point that even a liberal/progressive can be intransigent ("fundamentalist") about something, and that the refusal to consider alternative opinions is never a good trait.

    Oh certainly. And I really liked your column a way back about the difference between understanding another opinion and respecting it, btw.

    I actually read crazy fundamentalist websites a lot, actually, just to see how these people think (and to find the holes in their arguments).

    ReplyDelete
  9. "My point was that the specific complaints are flimsy and misguided, regardless of what Cal says (as usual, I might add :)"

    Who cares what I think. What does science really say about this? That is the all important determinate, isn’t it. In that regard, I believe that we often need to go against our nature and prefs to get better results. That tact might get sort of old to you, Mr.Pigliucci. But on my behalf, it certainly is in no way disingenuous.

    c

    ReplyDelete
  10. I agree with Dennis. Obviously the concern is not for the teenage girls. I wonder if it would be more acceptable to the conservatives if funds from Girls.inc were going towards high priced therapists helping spoiled, wealthy teenagers deal with their issues of sexual orientation? Somehow I think this would be "less immoral" to them.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Then, it's time to stop tolerating, IMHO, and restrict immigration of such individuals.

    Hmm... dangerous territory being treaded here. I understand your concern, but it brings out a dilemma, as I'll try to argue below. And your conclusion is a bit frightening: you can't punish in advance of the fault, at least not in a democratic, free society. Doing it beforehand is censorship, at the least. In the example you gave, what would be done? Bar the entry of all Muslims? Just of Muslims who failed some "appropriateness test"? Just of Muslims who came from a certain region? Who would determine and enforce all this?

    Now, let's not get too fixated on that one example, but apply the general principle, since that's what matters. Let's hypothesize that it became a common and majoritary belief that liberal-style thinking is actually damaging for society, really leading to the degradation of morality, attracting the wrath of gods, damaging economy with all the money wasted on helping the poor (who everybody knows are poor just because they are lazy) and all those fearful kind of things (does this sound other-worldly or like something your neighbor - or President? - might actually believe?).

    What's the majority to do to defend society in such a case? Of course, ban any liberal publication or organization. Deport or incarcerate (Guantanamo, anyone?) any (even suspected) violator or critic of the "liberal free" society commandments. It's been done before, with not so admirable results, in countless places and times, as you'll probably remember.

    If I'm wrong, please tell me how would my fictitious scenario be different from your fictitious scenario? Aren't they the same story, only with slightly different actors and setting, but the same basic principle in essence?

    The provocative point is: I define democracy, only half jokingly, as "dictatorship of the majority". Whatever most people in society want, that's what they vote for - or force you to do. What if society does change and we do go back to the dark ages of the Bible and Quran and etc. and think that women should indeed be considered inferior and subordinate to man?

    On the same line of thought: are our values desirable for every society? In our point of view, no doubt. But what about theirs? What you take as a "god given", as the obscurantists like to put it, I might consider a crime against humanity. And vice versa.

    Keep discussing, it's fun when well done! :-)

    J

    ReplyDelete
  12. j wrote:

    Hmm... dangerous territory being treaded here.

    True.

    and your conclusion is a bit frightening: you can't punish in advance of the fault, at least not in a democratic, free society.

    The way I see it, immigration is a privilege, not a right. Therefore, taking it away or restricting it is not a punishment.

    Doing it beforehand is censorship, at the least. In the example you gave, what would be done? Bar the entry of all Muslims? Just of Muslims who failed some "appropriateness test"? Just of Muslims who came from a certain region? Who would determine and enforce all this?

    Well, I am in favor of "censorship" when it comes to immigration, and it's for reasons like I cited earlier. I think the US and Europe should adopt an immigration policy like Canada has -- only allow in the people who have a unique skill or otherwise benefit the country in some way.

    How exactly the benefit would be determined would be thorny, I agree. But heck, I would support screening people out based on their views of how society and politics should work. If you don't agree with the government outlined in the Constitution, if you want to build an Islamic theocracy and you think women shouldn't have basic rights, then stay the heck out of my country. I mean, there are plenty of Islamic theocracies out there already. If you want to live by Sharia, move to one of them.

    Brigitte Bardot and other people who are opposing Muslim immigration to Europe get a bad rap for "racism" (even though Islam is not defined by race). But I think she's right on. And finally some Europeans are beginning to catch on to this, albeit in the wake of the murders of gay people and filmmakers and the like by Muslims.

    Note that I'm not talking about religion, per se. I have no problem with Muslims who support the idea of democracy and keeping church and state separate. My best friend in high school was a Muslim girl who came from a family that practiced Islam yet nonetheless supported Western-style democracy.

    Let's hypothesize that it became a common and majoritary belief that liberal-style thinking is actually damaging for society.... It's been done before, with not so admirable results, in countless places and times, as you'll probably remember.

    On the same line of thought: are our values desirable for every society? In our point of view, no doubt. But what about theirs? What you take as a "god given", as the obscurantists like to put it, I might consider a crime against humanity. And vice versa.


    And that's precisely my point. I think you can make a good case that *objectively*, a secular democracy gives the greatest good to the greatest number. Western civ takes a bad rap sometimes, but it's the best thing we got. Not all cultures and societies are equal, especially for women. The things described in this article are prime examples of this un-PC yet compelling truth.

    Sure there are those people who think otherwise, and there always will be. But I'll be damned if I will let them take over my society without me putting up a good fight, at least.

    ReplyDelete
  13. The way I see it, immigration is a privilege, not a right. Therefore, taking it away or restricting it is not a punishment.

    Adrienne, you got me there... Seen from this angle, there's no way your position can be attacked - at least not with the arguments I put forward earlier. I didn't even remotely remember the "privilege" status of immigration, although I should, with all the countless forms and documents I've been filling out for the past 4 years and all that. My forgetfulness must be due to the fact that I'm against not only the existence of religions, but of countries too... :-)

    As long as the restrictions you write about are very carefully implemented and kept to "privileges" and the like, no problem (maybe a philosophical one, depending on one's leaning). What I'm afraid of is something quite paupable nowadays, with Patriotic Acts and shootings of peasants in subways by undercover police - people are so afraid that they end up accepting restrictions to their freedom to enhance their (perception of) safety. And in the end, it brings exactly what the restrictions were supposed to avoid in the first place.

    I know I strayed a bit from the immigration case in my digression. But my point is that you can get society used to restrictions little by little, with rightfull and sensible measures, and they might end up accepting anything as a simple fact of life - well, that's pretty much a conclusion that can also be taken from that interesting (from a sad side) link you posted. People in those "pre-Enlightenment" societies don't even know what they are missing (for good and for bad, sometimes). I'm just afraid we might even have the possibility of going back to such savage state of affairs. You know, it's hard to construct, but left to themselves things easily go downhill. That's my half-jokingly-applyed "thermodynamic" principle of societies. Yes, I'm a bit pessimistic regarding human nature sometimes... :-)

    But I'll be damned if I will let them take over my society without me putting up a good fight, at least.

    No possibility of critique there! Right on... :-)

    Cheers
    J

    ReplyDelete
  14. Back to the topic...
    I work for an international company which is headquartered in Plano, Texas. I'm not located there but I was gratified to see the following message in a company news letter:
    A special “Thanks!” to the folks from the Plano, Texas office who participated in Global Volunteer Day (GVD) last weekend, and to Joy Fxxxxxxx for coordinating the event with Girls, Inc. in Dallas. It was a very rewarding day for all involved with the interior painting, maintenance and filing projects, and landscaping clean-up.
    ---------------------------------
    Eat well, stay fit, Die Anyway!

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.