http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1859323,00.html?iid=tsmodule

Responses to the ban have stopped just short of extortion, with the founder of Californians Against Hate using the threat of a boycott to leverage contributions to the organization:

“Karger says a “soft boycott” his group had started against Bolthouse Farms — which gave $100,000 to Prop. 8 — was dropped after he reached a settlement with the company. Bolthouse Farms was to give an equal amount of money to gay rights political causes. The amount ultimately equaled $110,000.”

Pretty shady and sickening.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems like ultimately there wasn’t anything unlawful or wrong about what they did. A people group found something they wanted a voice in, funded it and the majority of the population (albeit maybe not the majority, but the majority that CHOSE TO VOTE on it) agreed with the proposition and passed it.

I understand the response of “Californians Against Hate” - they feel attacked and like their rights have been infringed apon and so posting a list of names of their enemies is a way to feel good and get even. (see loaded language throughout their site if you doubt this point.)

Here is the break-down though. This list, in my opinion, does little more than further polarize each group. Californians Against Hate hating on Proposition 8 supporters, Proposition 8 supporters feeling shamed and exposed (legally so but exposed nonetheless), resulting in further entrenchment on the issue.

I probably wouldn’t have supported - financially or otherwise - Prop8 if it were an option here. I guess I’m just not seeing how this Dishonor Roll is helpful outside an attempt to shame people for exercising their political freedom.

As an aside, I agree that cultures should sometimes be disrupted. Apartheid and various acts of civil disobedience from Gandhi to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. spring immediately to mind. But there are stupid ways of disrupting a culture and smart ways of doing so. I’ve recently read The Wisdom of Whores by Elisabeth Pisani (WHICH IS AN AWESOME BOOK) and she really rips into a lot dumb stuff that different aid groups have done. And I read Rebel Without Borders by Marc Vachon (which is just ok) and he describes some similar instances of groups with a lot of money acting like idiots. After reading those books, I think I really connect much more with international humanitarian aid on a gut level, but I’m also a lot more suspicious and cynical about aid organizations–not that I wouldn’t donate, but I might really do my research and try, as much as possible, to give to someone who will do good and not just sound good. Which is not intended to be a slam against the girl effect, just an attempt to explain why I’m so twitchy about glossy ad campaigns for aid organizations right now.

meh, or else i’m just a cynic who needs a life.

I can’t speak as a scholar, but I believe that less-developed nations tend to devalue women comparatively.

Cassia, yes this could upset some cultural norms, but…
1) The charities that the GirlEffect gives to are not just dropping goats in girls’ bedrooms, they are providing safe spaces, education, legal representation, entrepreneurial training, and loans.
2) From a human rights perspective, it’s obvious that increasing the status of an oppressed group is going to be better for the individuals in that group, but I’d argue that it’s better for a society as a whole. It’s good for the state of racism in the US for people like Barack Obama, Condoleezza Rice, and Colin Powell to be major political players. It’s also good when black people are our bosses, our professors, our actors, and our business owners.
Eliminating unhealthy cultural attitudes will improve the culture - even if it upsets the culture first (and wouldn’t it have to?).

I don’t know that it’s saying that women are intrinsically more valuable, but it is claiming that in many (or most) struggling countries, women are in a unique position. Investing in them will simultaneously fight inequality and poverty.

Given cultural norms and upbringing, it is very possibly true that girls are the better investment if you’re looking to pump life into a dying community.

:D

I have been a big fan of microfinancing in the past. (Who could possibly object to giving a poor family a goat?) But recently, I’ve been reading a couple of books by actual aid workers who have worked on the ground in various countries and specializations, and I’m beginning to be suspicious of the simplicity of arguments like this. The world and the cultures it contains are incredibly complex. In some places, it might be entirely beneficial and right to attempt to start a feminist revolution by encouraging girls to be goat-ranchers. But I suspect in other places it is such a violation of the social fabric that its benefits are cancelled out. (Sound ridiculous? Imagine this hypothetical scenario: In the culture of country X, men and women have strictly divided but equally important roles in society. The men take care of the livestock and the women grow the crops. Occasionally, a girl is simply more drawn to herding, and so she fights and argues and shocks people and sometimes she succeeds and all the lovely things happen that the video talked about. And that’s awesome for her. But for the most part, this setup works for people, and everyone gets a balanced diet of produce and meat. Now this NGO swoops in and says, guess what!?!?! Women are powerful and awesome and they should have goats and herds and a place on the village council!!!!!1!! Well, this is taking the mens’ jobs away and giving it to women. So the men are displeased. A fair portion of the women get excited about this idea and try to herd. But they now have to contend not only with the natural challenges of living things and weather and climate and bad luck that most farmers deal with, but they have dissatisfied men picking at them and hindering them, too. Meanwhile, the crops are not getting as much attention as they should. So we have problems, yes?) Not to mention that I question the inherent benefit of a feminist revolution. Again, sometimes good and sometimes bad. Sometimes both.

But like nick said, I just woke up and its Friday. Things might look different on further reflection.

sorry so long. sleepiness apparently doesn’t decrease my word count.

Then I started to realize the US is probably pretty unique (or at least the video would like me to believe). Developing nations male and female equality isn’t necessarily a given.

Ultimately what seems off to me, is it feels like equality is being overstepped to the point of saying, women are intrinsically more valuable and the solution to the poverty.

I don’t know, it’s early, I just woke up and it’s Friday…

Thanks for the GDI tip - I was wondering what that meant.

I think it would be sad to see the hacker(s) charged with a felony. I thought this was hilarious.

goodluck to you whoever you are
you might as well turn yourself and get a lesser punishment.

although some may praise your actions, good luck.

Good thing UIUC is spending all of their time with their “branding” effort yet their massmail system is so flawed security-wise.