No. Some boycotts are designed to alter different corporate behaviors. The Chick-fil-A boycott, for instance. Its goal was to display anger with the company president’s opposition to gay rights. And I haven’t bought gasoline from Exxon/Mobil in decades because of the Exxon Valdez spill.
The goal with this particular boycott is the objectionable thing to me. There are plenty of books out there with which I philosophically disagree. But I do not believe they should be made unavailable to other people. Even the truly horrifically evil ones.
Hi, Constance Cooper here. I’d like to provide a little more detail about what actually happened.
My daughter was the one who found the books. She became horrified without any help from me. She did look inside the books, and read quite a lot of the sections. By this time she was crying and summoned me. I agreed with her that the books were awful.
I said OK, sweetie, let’s go put them back. “No!” she said. “I want to talk to the manager.”
At this point the bookstore employee stepped in and made what I thought was a very smooth customer-pleasing move, but one that was not requested by me in any way.
The point of this post was supposed to be that I was proud of my daughter for recognizing the sexism and for speaking up.
As far as teachable moments go, I feel that I was the one who got a lesson. I would have left without saying anything, and felt angry all day.
This was an attempt to “alter different corporate behaviors”. It was certainly an attempt to alter the book store’s behavior, and presumably if the chain book stores stop carrying such titles then the publisher would probably also change its behaviors.
It’s not as if sexism is a really obscure, endangered point of view that’s going to be snuffed out any time soon. There’s plenty of publishers and retail outlets selling sexism.
SamSam had a better argument I think although I think it applies better to libraries than to retail outlets.
In addition to dragonfrog’s comments I would also add that an objection to the targeting and exclusivity of marketing in a pigeonhole-y way is miles away from trying to remove important ideas from being expressed and made available. If they simply re-published the books as “survival guide for escapists” and “survival guide for the social scene” that would be an easy way around lazy, retrograde gender-stereotyped marketing, and few of the commentators who you’re comfortably now holier than would scarcely object.
SamSam had the perfect argument. This isn’t about boycotts, it’s about deciding for others what you think is good or bad. The kid’s reaction was powerful and laudable and understandable. I’d have encouraged her to voice her distaste, even to the store management. But I’d have spent a good amount of time (probably too much time, since I’m such a wordy SOB who never knows when to shut up) trying to explain my I don’t think pulling the books off the shelves is a good thing. Maybe she’d end up agreeing with me, maybe not. But it would be a viewpoint that I would feel important enough to present to her, nearly as important as her laudable and appropriate reaction to the sexism.
Switch the covers and you are done. Boys really, really, really need to learn the stuff in the girls’ book. I speak as someone who was once a boy. You can rip out the chapter about turning no into a yes, although that is about negotiation, I’ll bet. Win with words, not violence!
And you misunderstood me. I know this was an attempt to alter the bookstore’s behavior (and an apparently successful one at that). My use of the word “different” meant that other boycotts would be intended to accomplish other (“different”) aims than this one. Rather than removing a book from the shelves, a boycott can express disapproval with a corporate policy (or perceived attitude) regarding gay rights, or a corporate policy regarding a certain amount of sluggishness when it comes to environmental cleanup following a toxic spill. Gilbert’s question seemed to imply he thought all boycotts were aimed at removing books from shelves.
Funny, my son still loves to use those little blocks to build his own creations… pity I am going to have to tell him they aren’t for building, but just to get him to watch the movies…
no, we’re definitely not in agreement about that analogy. This is more akin to a child showing two books, one that says “for creationists” with instructions on how to do stereotypical creationist activities, like make anti-gay protest signs and burn witches and one that says “For Scientists” which talks about how to do stereotypical scientist activities like feed christian babies to their lab animals and skew climate change data, to an employee, who sees that the books are garbage, and not up to the standard of the store, and boots them off the shelf to make room for a better book.
Porn for kids series - one for girls and one for boys.
Boys -
How to diddle a dragon
sex up a succubi
Put on your wizard robes
…
Girls -
What is a condom and how to make the boy use it
The proper way to play Doctor
…
I am gonna make so much money and I owe it all to you (note: this does not count as offer to pay any money or actual admittance of owing any said money to anyone for use of their idea in corrupting the children of America)
The boundless resourcefulness and creativity of children does not a less shitty product make. Also, the original argument is about the useless, poorly written spinoff book products, not the bricks.
If the bookstore agrees wholeheartedly that the book isn’t up to their standards, and is embarrassed that it somehow slipped through and made the cut onto their shelves, as appears to be the case here, I don’t see how your hyperbole applies.
I’m still not seeing a huge difference between “I don’t want to shop in a store that sells sexist books” vs. “I don’t to shop in a store that sells pornography” and I’m not sure I understand your argument that it is different.
If need be let’s imagine a book called “Self Harm for Kids” that recommends fun games like “Drink What’s Under the Kitchen Sink” and “First Foot on the Third Rail”. Suppose a customer complained to a manager at a book store that carried such a title.
Yes, this is a reductio ad absurdum argument but I’m trying to figure out if there actually IS a point at which we all agree “yeah, we probably shouldn’t let anyone sell that book.”
Another thought: perhaps it’s salient that these are books for children. Perhaps “Self Harm for Kids” would be fine as a parody of a children’s book if sold only to adults whereas trying to sell it to children is the real problem.
I tend to agree with you that there’s no principled way to advocate that this book be removed from the shelves without also allowing SamSam’s scenario of Christians removing children’s books about evolution or (probably more harmful) sex ed. But it’s an interesting moral problem and it can’t hurt to discuss it a little without getting moralistic about it. (When you start saying stuff like “You’re WRONG because PRINCIPLES” you’re being moralistic.)
No, not at all. I kinda see both sides here, mind, and don’t think there’s a right answer, really. Which is why we’re arguing about it on the internet (which is why we’ve got accounts here, admit it).
edit: Argh. Splelings.
