I was perusing Facebook earlier today, when I saw a link for the following website: National Marriage Boycott. Purportedly the group's goal is to get people to NOT marry until everyone can. Their definition of everyone being able to marry is the repeal of DOMA. Now this may seem like a worthy goal and a very creative method of protest, but let's think a little more critically here.
First off, boycotts are just plain stupid. For boycotts to actually achieve anything, the number of people boycotting have to be staggering. Otherwise, it's just an annoyance. Boycotting has FAR more to do with the boycotters than with the company/institution/thing being boycotted. It's about feeling good about activism. And, no surprise, this group was created at that "great" institution Stanford University, where rich kids go to feel good about themselves. The "pledge" to end marriage has just under 1000 signatories. Any guesses as to how many of those will actually take any further action to repeal DOMA? Not very many. This type of movement is all bark and no bite. And only 1000 signatories? The group claims to have chapters at schools other than Stanford, including UCLA, UCSB, and FSU. But only 1000?
Second off, the idea of boycotting marriage is not only ineffective, it is just plain offensive! Inherent in the idea of a boycott is the idea that those who don't partake in the boycottt are either perpetrating some evil or allowing some evil to be perpetrated by their inaction. I find that horrible offensive! As a strong same-sex marriage supporter I find the idea that my marriage is some type of evil to be disgusting. I would love to see same-sex marriage come to pass in this country, but it's not worth my marriage or my wife!
Third, what is this SPECIFIC boycott going to accomplish? Is anyone even going to notice? How many gay or "questioning" people out there are actually planning on getting married anytime soon? Isn't this boycott a little like me determining to personally boycott and not use tampons? I wasn't going to anyway! And who is really going to care? Sure, the supporters will cheer (absent myself obviously), but it's preaching to the choir. Those who oppose same-sex marriage couldn't care less if these kids don't get married! Boycotts usually attempt, and subsequently usually fail, at causing so much harm, usually financially, that someone caves. This movement can effect no real harm on society.
It's pointless, self-serving, and patently offensive. Yep, pretty much what I'd expect from my alma mater....
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I don't even know where to begin in my response.
ReplyDeleteI'm still trying to wrap my head around how thoughtless some of your ideas in this post are.
More to come later.
Hmm. I have to say Grant, I don't agree with you here. Before I get into that, I will say that I do think some forms of boycotting do have the capacity to be basically feel-good protests, if you will, but they don't necessarily have to be large-scale to make an impact. Call me a hippie, but if one person's advocacy causes another to stop and think - even for a moment - I think it's well worth the effort. Just think, Bob stages a protest, Sarah questions her stance. Sarah tells John of her problem, John tells Steve, and so on and so forth.
ReplyDeleteNow, on to the meat (tofu?) of this: I do not, in any way, shape, or form think this that the boycott of marriage is an affront to the institution. Perhaps in the traditional sense of a "boycott" I can understand where your reaction comes from, but this is a very, very different situation. The people mentioned here aren't getting married out of some protest to what they consider to be a broken system - quite the opposite. These people consider marriage to be a wonderful thing that needs to end its exclusivity. They are abstaining because that wonderful thing is being denied to a large group of law-abdiding Americans. Again, in the traditional sense of a "boycott", I can understand your stance but not when you take a step back to actually apply it to this particular set of circumstances.
Reading your thoughts that not supporting marriage equality is akin to the damning of all marriage reminds me of those people who think that their heterosexual partnerships will be threatened by homosexual ones. Which, of course, is bullshit (if those people have any faith in their relationship). Your marriage has nothing to do with mine, my neighbor's, your friends, your neighbor's, my friends, etc, etc. Likewise, the passing of same-sex marriage in this country will have absolutely no effect - none whatsoever - on your union or the union of millions of other heterosexuals.
Your last comment about the usefulness of the boycott I already somewhat addressed when I said if it causes one person to stop and think about social in justice than it's been successful but I will end with this: you may never have a need for tampons, but over half the population does. I have known quite a few friends who have lamented to me their grief at their marriage not be accepted by the state. Friends who have driven to others states and even countries to get a marriage license only to, of course, have it be negated here. Just from my personal experience, I've known plenty of gay couples who have planned for ages to get married and are, in fact, eagerly awaiting the time when this country catches up with the 21st century.
~ Cary
Cary--
ReplyDeleteThanks for the really insightful response! I totally see where you are coming from about making people think. I didn't think about that!
I feel like my rant had more to do with specific issues I still have from my time at Stanford that I just don't really want to get into here. I probably took this movement to task a little too hard. But I was still personally offended and I still find it offensive. But I totally get your point...
Overall, I think that I probably went a little far here!
"Reading your thoughts that not supporting marriage equality is akin to the damning of all marriage"
I don't really get that statement. I think either you or myself aren't really being clear... I was trying to say that because of the way boycotts inherently work there is judgment passed on my marriage that I think is ludicrous.
I also think that religion plays a part here. To me, marriage is more than a public statement and more than a set of benefits. It is a religious "sacrament" if you will. It is sacred. Boycotting marriage, to me, would be like boycotting going to church or praying or worship. There are just some things that are FAR more important than symbolic gestures!
Guy--
I await your forthcoming thoughts on pins and needles! Hopefully they will be more substantial than simple ad hominems!
Grant,
ReplyDeleteWhile I have never really been convinced that boycotts are an efficient (or effective) form of opposition, I feel like you're overstating your case.
To call this boycott self-serving and pointless is probably not entirely accurate, or at least not particularly useful. Even if it's done for essentially selfish reasons (which I don't neccessarily believe is the reason most people are doing it), one could argue that ALL protest of any form is self-serving, in the sense that trying to bring the world more into line with one own worldview is likely to give one a sense of satisfaction.
As for pointless, they do have a goal, even if their method of delivery is relatively ineffective.
Also, what are your thoughts on boycotts as they relate to freedom of expression? Understanding that you find the sentiment that this particular boycott expresses to be offensive, do you still recognize their right to do object to what they percieve to be unfair treatment?
As to sacraments, do you believe they should be out of bounds as far as criticisms go?
Anon--
ReplyDeleteYou're definitely right! It's not pointless. Ineffective would have been the better adjective. I agree that most protest is self-serving, but I think this boycott is especially more so because of its inherent ineffectiveness and inefficiency. I can't really say why people are doing this, but I have a pretty good handle of Stanford students and how apathetic they truly are, so my guess is most people are doing so simply to feel good about themselves.
And of course I recognize their right! They have the right to protest and boycott the same as the Nazis in Skokie. I would never claim otherwise. I, on the other hand, also have the right to criticize them and to object to what I see as offensive!
As for sacraments: I do not think they are out of bounds for criticism. I do think, however, that when they are criticized, those who object to them should prepare for heavy fallout. We are indeed a Christian nation and old habits die hard. Sacraments can of course be criticized, but expect a harsh response.
I just don't understand how one would go about carrying out such a boycott - if you are engaged to marry someone, do you just live with them until gay marriage is legal and you can have a ceremony? That means you're married under common law, anyway. Or, do you stunt your relationship by living separately until gay marriage is legal? That latter seems a little extreme to me. In my opinion, marriage is a personal choice between two people. Yes, it should be open to gays, but one's own marriage should not be affected by what anyone else thinks or does - and that includes whether or not gays can marry.
ReplyDeleteMandy--
ReplyDeleteAccording to my understanding of the boycott, one would stay married or get married anyway and just wear some kind of "equality" ring instead of, or as well as, their wedding ring. So basically you wouldn't boycott at all in that case...
"one's own marriage should not be affected by what anyone else thinks or does"
That was my entire problem with the boycott! Good way to sum it up there!
So in this one, you argue that a Facebook group is "all bark and no bite." A bold stand, but may I also suggest for this category any other group on Facebook: past, present, or future?
ReplyDeleteNow, boycotting may be silly because, as you say, it will probably be ineffectual. Or, as Cary suggests, maybe it isn't so trivial because political advocacy of even the smallest kind can snowball and slowly work changes on people's minds. Either way, it seems to me that effectiveness is overrated. A boycott wouldn't have done it for John Brown--his actions were certainly more effectual, more of a lever to move the world, than any Facebook petition could ever be. But it's not so obvious that his methods were better simply because they were more consequential.
So what's your real problem with this boycott? It can't be that it's just pointless. Why would you sit down to write about things that are really and truly irrelevant to anything?
The real reason you posted this was probably, like you said, because you were offended. But you shouldn't have been.
You say that boycotts imply that people who don't join them perpetuate some social evil, either directly or, by their inaction, indirectly. That is true of all social movements, not just boycotts, and a person has to develop thick skin when it comes to this fact. Every moment you spend not saving the Earth, you are allowing the poisoning of the planet to continue. Every dollar you spend on your morning coffee could have gone into schools for girls in Afghanistan that would help break the vicious circle in that country. From deep within the auto-icon at University College London, Jeremy Bentham's waxy head is telling you you could be making better use of your time on this planet to the betterment of all its inhabitants.
Does this offend you?
Of course not. It doesn't offend anyone. And the marriage boycott wouldn't offend you, I suspect, unless it made you feel either (1) guilty about your own marriage, or (2) called out in some unfair way.
I expect you don't feel guilty (nor should you), so I imagine the real issue here is you feel this group in some subtle way declares you to be a homophobe (which I know you not to be). That would be unfair--just because you're "conservative" or married or whatever doesn't mean you can't support same-sex marriage. But this might be the kind of (rebuttable) presumption commonly espoused by the student body at Stanford or many other colleges. I'm just conjecturing here, but if this is how you understood this group, that could explain (1) your taking offense, (2) the gratuitous digs at Stanford in your post, and (3) what motivated you to trivialize the fairly low-hanging fruit of a Facebook group.
All of which leads me to believe that this post was really about frustration with political labels. And if I'm right, the frustration seems to run deep, and you're not the conservative you say you are but something closer to a true independent.
Which, looking at the news these days, seems to be a new and growing generation of the American political animal.