Conference turris::womannotes-v2

    I don't think her remark that smoking is ". . .a feminist issue"
    is as well phrased as it might have been.  I believe smoking
    is a health issue for all people and one that should be individually
    decided.  What, for instance, are the feelings of feminists who
    smoke?  As it stands, the phrasing strikes me as a bit presumptuous.
    Yes, I personally think that the source of funding matters, and
    Philip Morris wouldn't be my first choice of funders.  However,
    since it's a fact that many women do smoke and that some of those
    are members of the N.O.W., I'd feel more comfortable about Yard's 
    remarks if there was solid evidence that the majority of the members
    shared her feelings.
    
    Steve
    
    BTW, what is the Gannett Foundation?                        

    re .1, Steve-
    
    > What, for instance, are the feelings of feminists who smoke?  
    > As it stands, the phrasing strikes me as a bit presumptuous.
 
    I'd have used the word "maternalistic" though I'll confess that
    paternalistic came first to mind.  As a member of NOW, I don't 
    happen to agree with her statement.
    
    > BTW, what is the Gannett Foundation?
    
    Newspaper/media chain, I'd thought.  Anybody know for sure?
    
    DougO

    
    Gannett publishes USA Today, I believe...

    This discussion could almost be an outgrowth of Ellen's note about
    a hospital not accepting money from a gun club.

    For many  years NOW and other feminist organizations have received
    a  lot  of  funding  from  tobacco  companies. At least one had an
    advertising  campaign  linking  the  ability  to smoke to feminism
    (You've come a long way, baby). These campaigns have worked. There
    are  now  more teenage girls smoking than teenage boys. The cancer
    rates for women are approaching those for men. Personally, I think
    this  is an area where equality would have been better achieved by
    lowering   men's   smoking  (which  has  also  happened)  than  by
    increasing women's smoking. I'm told that at early meetings of NOW
    cigarette  companies  left  free samples everywhere as part of the
    sponsorship arrangement.

    Does it  matter  where  one's  money comes from? Certainly to some
    people.  I  have  several  friends  who  won't work for particular
    companies  because  they  disagree  with the uses of the companies
    products.  I  would have a lot of trouble believing in what NOW is
    working  for  if  they  accepted money fro the KKK. As for tobacco
    companies,  they  make  me somewhat uncomfortable, because I don't
    like  their ads that say "Now that you're equal to men" (or in ads
    to children "Now that you're an adult") You can smoke. If they get
    advertising  space  for  that  message I would object. If they get
    their name on a plaque listing all the donors, I wouldn't object.

    For a  dissenting  opinion,  read Shaw's "Major Barbara" where the
    salvation  army  has  to decide whether to take money from an arms
    dealer.

--David

    There's a school of thought that argues that it's a perfectly
    legitimate idea to take money from oppressive/exploitative
    organisations because at least that way they do *some* good.
    
    						=maggie

    These funds have allowed the Women's Hall of Fame to keep their
    doors open.  Given the choice of refusing the contribution and shutting
    the doors or accepting the contribution and developing a Women's
    Hall of Fame, I'd say it was a tough call.  Pros and cons on both
    sides.
    
    I echo the sentiment of the previous noter about the source of future
    contributions.  In a way, this was a "conscience contribution" from
    the tobacco industry.
    
    Judi
    

>        <<< Note 677.8 by GANDER::CLARY "Poignant device >>>--->" >>>
>                -< It would help if it were a feminits issue. >-

    "feminits" - I like that.  A useful term!  Thanks, Bob... :-)
    
    I agree with you that Philip Morris's money should be considered
    tainted, just as a donation from the Ku Klux Klan (to give an extreme
    example) would be.  I consider Philip Morris's major product to be
    one that destroys lives, with the full knowledge of PM's executives.
    I would be ashamed to accept a donation from them, no matter how
    badly I thought I needed it.
    
    I'm less sure on the notion of smoking being a "feminist issue", if
    by that one means an issue that primarily affects women (which is how
    I would define it).  I would tend to think of smoking as an issue
    important to both women and men, and not specifically one or the other.
    
    If a women's organization such as NOW wishes to take a stand against
    smoking, I'm all for it.  But let's have them do so on its basis as
    a public health issue, and not one to be nominally identified with
    women.
    
    Perhaps others would disagree, but I don't think that just because
    a woman takes a stand on something that it automatically becomes
    a "women's issue".  But if it works to mobilize women more so than
    would be otherwise, it might be worth it.
    
    				Steve

    
    I'm glad to discover that smoking is a feminist issue, since that
    means that it isn't an issue I need concern myself with...
    
    /. Ian .\
    
    (You will discern from the above that I consider it to have been
    a particularly dumb choice of words, especially from a source (the
    feminist movement) that is usually so concerned about the impact
    of words...)

    Are you folkd all playing games with semantics here? Smoking is
    a feminist issue but not an exclusively feminine issue. OK? Thanks.
    
    Maggie, You said there's an argument that says, at least the tobacco
    companies are doing something good. Well, by the feminist movement
    giving them good p.r, they enable them to do something horrendous.
                                          |      |
    Bad place for the museum -> HARD PLACE|museum|ROCK 
                                          |      | 
                              
    Kate
    

    
    	Yeah, the source of the money does matter. But that's the Great
    Discrepancy of American Business; "Just get the money - doesnt matter
    how or from whom - Just GET THE MONEY!"
    
    	To me, the "tobacco industry" is on about the same level as
    any other organized crime syndicate. I could care less if "they're
    legal" or whatever - *I* see right through that facade_bullsh*t.
    
    	Do you know that they pit people against their own disease,
    in their promotions of their product_of_death? Yes they do, and the 
    disease I'm thinking of is very prevalent in this society; from what 
    I've heard the percentage of _all effected_ is in the high 90s!
    I have hard evidence of this. Interested? Send me mail and I'll
    be glad to tell you all about it...
    
    	IMHO, any =WN= worth her salt, feminist or not, would let that
    place go down before attending or supporting it in any way, after
    hearing of this stupid, careless choice of accepting "money" from 
    the death_mongers. My God - There is no integrity anymore! People
    have forgotten the definition of the word...
    
    	Joe Jas

    <--(.11)

    Kate, I agree with you.  The fact that the source of the money is
    publicised (perhaps as a condition of the grant?  I wouldn't be at all
    surprised) will, in the end, do *much* more harm than good to women.

    <--(.12)

�     	IMHO, any =WN= worth her salt, feminist or not, would let that
�     place go down before attending or supporting it in any way, after
�     hearing of this stupid, careless choice of accepting "money" from 
�     the death_mongers. My God - There is no integrity anymore! People
�     have forgotten the definition of the word...

    Joe, perhaps the better move is for all of us who both want to see the
    museum survive AND deplore the sellout is to see how much we can
    generate from our own pockets (I've already sent them $250 and DEC will
    match that so there's 1/120th of the sum already).  If we can turn up
    enough money, I think it would be quite reasonable to send it in with a
    jointly-written letter to the effect that they can only have it if they
    PUBLICLY return the tobacco-company money.  

    It puts our money where our mouth is, and gives a good example to other
    groups of where integrity lives these days.

    Anybody up for it?

     						=maggie

    Well I don't have a lot of discretionary capital (:-}...it's called
    college tuition bills) but I'm sure that I could send $15. I would
    be willing to send it with a strong recommendation that they reconsider
    the tobacco grant but not make rejecting it an absolute condition
    of my gift.
    
    Bonnie

    According to   yesterday's   Boston   Globe,   the   Gannet  group
    (publishers  of  USA  Today)  gave $100,000 and Philip Morris gave
    $10,000.  There were also private contributions totalling $42,000.

    Does  the  fact  that  there  was enough money to cover the crisis
    without  P-M's  money make it less ethical to take it? That was my
    gut  reaction  -- They had enough money from sources that they can
    accept happily, why take money from P-M. Then I realized that "All
    we're  haggling  about  is  the price" (quote from Shaw or Russell
    about  prostitution),  and  a moral stand should not depend on the
    amount of money involved.

    USA Today  has  a policy of having a woman's picture appear in the
    top  half  of  the  first  page  every  day. Strictly a commercial
    consideration,  women buy the products that are advertised in such
    a  paper,  and  people  are more likely to buy a paper if they see
    pictures  they can relate to. At least that's what the Globe said.
    The  museum was delighted with Gannet, because of the women on the
    front  page.  I'll  withhold  my  delight  until  I see minorities
    represented  there  as  well. Until then I'll consider the women's
    pictures to be an advertising ploy.

--David

   

    Re .5, I think I agree with this school of thought.  It seems to
    me that if money was originally obtained in an evil way, but then
    some of that money is later used to do good, then that partially
    redeems the way the money was obtained to begin with.
    
    There is a difference between the V.P.'s of Phillip Morris living
    in luxury by selling cigarettes to people who may later go on to
    die from smoking related illnesses, and the Women's Hall of Fame
    (? or whatever? I'm sorry but I never heard of it before), taking
    money from Phillip Morris to continue their cause.  
    
    What if Phillip Morris were to offer a few million dollars to Aids
    research or to the Jimmy Fund or what if they offered to build 
    apartment complexes in 10 major cities to house the homeless (pretty
    unlikely,huh!), or what if they offered millions to help people
    in some disaster such as the Armenian earthquake, for example??
    
    I bet a lot of people would say, No, those causes are *too* important
    to refuse the tobacco money!  Well, why shouldn't the Women's Hall
    of Fame be considered too important, too?
    
    For example, if I sold tobacco to people, got rich, and bought myself
    a mansion, a yacht, and a private jet, and lived a life of luxury
    while other people coughed themselves to death from my product,
    I'd consider myself to be a greedy little Capitalistic bastard (of
    which there are many in the good ole' USA).  But, if somebody else
    sold tobacco to people, and decided to give *me* a large donation
    of money for a charity that I had organized to do good, and I decided
    to take that money and use it to help further my good cause, I'd
    have a clear conscience.
    
    The money is there.  Some of it may as well be put to some good
    use.
    
    Lorna
     

Re .16

>    It seems  to  me  that if money was originally obtained in an evil
>    way,  but  then  some of that money is later used to do good, then
>    that  partially  redeems  the  way the money was obtained to begin
>    with.

    Steal a  lot of money, give an imperceptible fraction to some good
    cause,  and  claim to be moral. I don't buy it. I seem to remember
    some  major  church  used  to  sell  absolutions or some such, but
    finally decided that it wasn't acceptable.

    This doesn't  necessarily mean that everyone should refuse to take
    money  that  they  consider ill-gotten, but that doing so does not
    provide moral absolution for the way in which the money was made.

--David

>    Steal a  lot of money, give an imperceptible fraction to some good
>    cause,  and  claim to be moral. I don't buy it. I seem to remember
>    some  major  church  used  to  sell  absolutions or some such, but
>    finally decided that it wasn't acceptable.

I'm pretty sure that this isn't what Lorna meant.  The point isn't that 
the gift redeems the giver -- the initial crime cannot be undone -- but
that the taint attaches to the criminal, not to his money.

Teh question can obviously be argued both ways (nor am I completely
comfortable with either side); but there is certainly a good argument
that the goodness or badness of money has much more to with how that 
money is used than with how it was obtained; and that there is no 
dishonor in using money for a good purpose, regardless of its origin.

Once again, note that this *does not* relieve the giver of the money for 
his/her responsibility for the means by which the money was obtained in
the first place.  And this appears to be the essence of the argument (in
this discussion, anyways) against taking Phillip-Morris's money:  not so
much that the money is tainted, but that there is no way to accept the money
without somehow tacitly accepting Phillip-Morris, and even increasing their
respectability in the broader social environment.

. . . . . . . . . .

My personal feeling is that one of the deepest problems with taking "dirty
money" is with the subtle effect that this must have on our own will in 
relationship to the giver.  How can I make a fully free moral on an issue 
when I have a personal stake in one side of it?  Once I am beholden to someone,
how can I evaluate my relationship to him with unclouded perception?

I'll give two personal examples of this sort of question that I've had to 
resolve for myself -- not because they are relevant in themselves, but because
they exemplify what I am trying to express here.  (I.e., let's not turn this
topic into a discussion of the ethics of vegetarianism! :-)

1.  Many years back, I became persuaded that it is wrong (in general, not
    necessarily in every specific case) to kill animals for food.  I did
    not lose my own taste for meat.  Simple logic would have suggested that
    my own personal decision to buy or not buy meat at the grocery was never
    going to have any effect on the meat industry, and that if the animal was
    dead anyway, I might as well eat it.  If I enjoyed the fruits of an 
    activity, though, how could I really, whole-heartedly, desire the
    ultimate termination of that activity?  And so, I refrain from eating meat,
    not because eating the meat would be wrong intrinsically, but to preserve 
    the integrity of my own convictions.

2.  Also many years back, I spent a while trading commodity futures.  After a
    time, I found that if I owned a large gold contract, then when I listened
    to the morning news there would be something in me that hoped that a war
    might have broken out or heated up.  After all, international unrest pushes
    up the price of gold, and peace depresses it...  I gave up the commodity
    trading fairly soon for other reasons (I was losing to much money); but 
    part of the tension that caused me to drop it was this extrinsic pressure
    on my own motivations and distortion of my sense of values.

-Neil

    
    re:.10
    how odd...if an issue is described as 'feminist', i should think
    everyone would be concerned...
    

    A "feminist issue" is one that people (or many people) who identify
    themselves as feminists think is important.  This does not mean it 
    does not affect other people or that it is only of importance to 
    feminists or women.  Other examples might be daycare or world peace.
    
    This reminds me of the debate about what are "topics of interest
    to women."
    
    A few notes back, someone (Ian?) interpreted Yard's statement as
    "Feminist say..."  It would be more accurate to say "(Molly Yard,)
    A prominent feminist said..."
    
    -Tracy

    re: Lorna and others
    
    I think the question should be whether the harm done outweighs the
    good. In the the case of tainted money going for AIDs research or
    low income housing, there is an immediacy of need. It's not necessarily
    that AIDs is more important than the museum, but it's the immediacy
    of people's lives being lost. 
    
    I think if the museum had the money to stay open without the P-M
    donation, they should have returned it, because the immediacy wasn't
    there. If it was the only way to stay open, keep it.
    
    That way sound like morals of convenience, but I really think it's
    more a question of whether the harm done will outweigh the good
    or not.                                  
    
    Roberta

    *flame on*
    
    Non-profit organizations are exactly that.  The average for individual
    contributions is 2-10% of an organization's budget.  The bulk of
    the income is derived from corporate grants, government grants and
    fees for services (tickets, merchandise, admission fees, tuition,
    etc.).
    
    Non-profits do not run on their own, and until individuals increase
    their support (volunteer and/or financial), the organizations will
    have to depend on sources of funding such as Philip Morris.
    
    Yes, I used to work in the non-profit world, for the whopping salary
    of $12,000/year.  And I have a master's degree.  Frankly, I couldn't
    support myself on that salary.
    
    Non-profits are in desparate need of volunteer and financial
    contributions, and I hope that you'll support them as you're able.
    
    *flame off*
    The Women's Hall of Fame didn't accept money from Philip Morris
    because of their business.  They needed the money to keep the place
    open.
    
    Prior to this story, how many people knew about the Women's Hall
    of Fame?  I hope that the publicity has generated enough exposure
    and alternative sources of funding.
    
    Judi
    

    re .17, David-
            > Steal a  lot of money, ...
    and re .18, Neil-
           > the taint attaches to the criminal, ...
    
    I consider this playing fast and loose with the words you're using.
    If you have a philosophical difference with people *choosing* to spend
    their money (subject to PR, I'll grant you...) on cigarettes then you
    should address those issues.  The manufacturers are not my favorite
    people, but neither are they breaking any laws.  Starting to look like
    a lynch mob in here.       
    
    DougO

    One reason it is a feminist issue in particular is that the number
    of women who smoke has increased dramatically over the past decade.
    Also, not only is the number of women suffering from smoking-related
    illness (cancer, emphysema, etc) increasing, but the rate at which
    it is increasing - is increasing.  
    
    More women are smoking than ever before, and many are suffering
    the ravages of the chemicals inhaled when smoking - although the
    money will be put to good use, I sincerely hope this gesture on
    the part of a tobacco company is not seen as something that mitigates
    their responsibility for selling dangerous products, or something
    that improves their image in the eyes of the victims of cigarette
    addiction, and those close to them.  
    
    Also, smoking causes SERIOUS problems for pregnant women, including low
    birth weight and some deformities....and to support women with some
    monetary slight of hand is an act of misdirection which I am unaffected
    by so long as the tobacco company continues to produce products which are
    so addictive that some pregnant women have a great deal of trouble
    stopping the habit while pregnant for the health of their fetus.
    
    -Jody
    

    Re .17, David, Neil's right about what I meant.  He understood what
    I meant more than you did.  I said "partially redeems the way the
    money was obtained", anyway, I didn't say *completely and absolutely*
    redeems the morals of the person or people who got the money.
    
    I wouldn't say that somebody who stole money and then gave it away
    to a good cause could necessarily claim to be morally in the right.
     But, then it might depend on who the money was stolen from.  Don't
    forget Robin Hood and his merry men? :-)  Isn't that what he did,
    stole money and then gave it to a good cause?
    
    What I would say is that if somebody else stole a bunch of money
    and gave me a few thousand, and I decided to donate it to Aids
    Research, *I* would not feel that I had done anything wrong.  I
    would have accepted money from somebody who stole it and then used
    it for a good cause.  My conscience would be clear but that does
    not mean that the person who stole the money to begin with 
    should have a clear conscience in my mind.  I would still consider
    them to be a thief, and their conscience their own problem. 

    At any rate, Phillip-Morris did not steal the money they donated.
     They offer a product for sale and a lot of people choose to buy
    it.  It is wrong for Phillip-Morris to make profits off of a dangerous
    product, but it is pretty damn stupid for people to keep buying
    cigarettes with all the publicity there has been about the health
    dangers.
    
    Why are so many young women this stupid?  People look at a cigarette
    ad that indicates that if they smoke such and such cigarette they
    are going to suddenly and magically be sexier, more popular, and
    perhaps even more independent (instant feminists as in "you've come
    a long way baby").  How can people be so naive as to think that
    smoking a cigarette is going to make them better looking and more
    popular?  How can peer pressure make somebody decide to smoke? 
    I honestly don't understand.  I've never wanted to smoke.  I know
    those ads are bullshit.  Why doesn't everybody else?  I really want
    to know.
    
    I smoked one cigarette in my life, a Camel, when I was 20 yrs. old.
     I was on a date with a guy I wanted to impress and I almost choked
    to death, as this cool guy pounded me on the back!  That was enough
    cigarettes for me.
    
    I do think the tobacco industry is wrong to make money that way
    and wrong to advertise the way they do, but they aren't stealing.
     People keep buying cigarettes of their own free will.  
    
    Lorna
    

    I think I'd be more concerned with whether the money came with strings
    attached than how it was earned in the first place. If my organization
    has been making public statements against smoking, and a tobacco
    company offers to contribute a lot of money on condition that the
    organization quits making those statements, I'd say "No, thanks."
    (If the anti-smoking campaign was only a sideline of the organization's
    main purpose, however, and if the need for cash was great enough, it
    could be veeery tempting to agree to go along, "just this once...")
    
    -b

    Ugh, this issue has a personal side for me.  When I was preparing to go
    off to college, I needed all the scholarship money I could muster.  My
    brother and were to split the scholarship money that was available to
    us as a family from the college my father taught at, which was good,
    but it was pretty clear that my brother would need most of because of
    his physical handicaps (and, in fact, he never did manage to complete
    college and gave up after 8 years.  I wish he would finish so he could
    become self-supporting, but that is a different note).  I managed to
    win a Merit Scholarship based on my test scores in that qualifying
    test, but it was one sponsored by a tobacco company (I think it was
    RJ Reynolds Tobacco - I don't remember anymore).   Yes, I accepted the
    money, and even wrote the sponsor the requisite nice thank-you
    note...but it didn't feel good.  One of my (equally-broke) friends got
    a similar scholarship from Reader's Digest, and I remember envying her
    the much easier choice in her case.  (I ended up with three scholarships
    and two different part-time jobs on campus, and finished up my degree
    in three years (I didn't sleep much, though!).)
    
    
    /Charlotte

    A Scottish preacher once said he'd gladly accept money from an immoral
    source (in this case, money won in gambling) because "the devil's had
    it long enough!" 

    When a small non-profit corporation I belong to wanted to raise
    money with Las Vegas nights, the motto was "Pecunia non olet".
    But we decided against it anyhow.
    
    						Ann B.