Boycott American Eagle

American Eagle seems like a perfectly nice clothing store, right? With their "Old School Style, New School Softness," they couldn't possibly be bad, right? They even have a line of clothes called "Endless Summer." A company that wants to give us endless warmth and sunshine undoubtedly also gives its workers raises and follows its own code of conduct to allow them to form unions...right?

Wrong.

Unfortunately, American Eagle Outfitters does not do this these things. According to labor union, UNITE HERE....

American Eagle Outfitters says it cares about workers – its Code of Conduct requires contractors to respect the right of employees to form a union. Yet workers at the warehouse contracted to ship AEO clothing in Canada faced harassment and intimidation when they tried to improve conditions by forming a union. And American Eagle hasn't lifted a finger to enforce its Code of Conduct.



More info:

A majority of workers at National Logistics Services (NLS) applied to join UNITE HERE. Workers wanted a union because they had not received raises in two to three years, lacked a fair process to move into permanent employment, dealt with daily disrespect from management, and faced unfair policy changes, like increased hours before overtime is paid.

The same day workers applied for union certification, NLS management intensified its anti-union campaign, hiring a US-based labor relations firm that arranged daily two-hour anti-union meetings, hung huge "vote no" posters in the workplace, and mailed an anti-union DVD to workers' homes.

American Eagle is NLS's largest client and owned and operated the NLS distribution center until early 2006.

"We work hard and want to be treated fairly.We feel insecure about our jobs because of the company's intimidation. We need a union because we have no voice."
-NLS Worker, speaking anonymously for fear of retaliation

*******************************************************

This kind of exploitation and intimidation is unacceptable. As members of QueerToday, and the greater queer community, we need to take action on this issue. UNITE HERE has a strong history of working with the LGBT community and supporting LGBT rights. Their group, Sleep With the Right People, is just one way in which UNITE HERE's work has been directly involved in the queer community.

American Eagle is a store that many (certainly not all) queers have worked or shopped at. It is now our responsibility to use that leverage against them. Additionally, American Eagle upholds heteronormativity in their marketing campaigns. From utilizing models that maintain (white) heteronormative beauty standards to actually placing heterosexual coupling in their advertisements as a means to sell their products, American Eagle serves to maintain heterosexual supremacy.



So, what can we do about the messed-up-ness that is American Eagle? First off, learn more about the campaign. Second, take action by writing American Eagle. Third, don't shop there.

Together, we can simultaneously work against heterosexism and anti-labor practices in an evil company.

Size Discrimination Bill

I wanted to wait until Pride weekend was over to write this, so that it would not get lost in the sea of Pride-related posts. I hope everyone had at least some really great experiences these last few days.


Anyway, for my second real post, I want to veer a little bit away from typical “queer politics” and talk about something that really directly affects me as a queer person (which means, some much needed time off from any concerns about "infighting!"). This is some information and action steps about H1844, a bill that is up for a hearing regarding discrimination (hate crimes not included) toward people regarding their size. I'm passing on this information because I think that action around this topic is really important. This bill has come up before and if it does not pass this time, the rumor I have heard is that it might not have a chance to again, but don't quote me on that because I don't totally get why, or what that would mean. The hearing for the bill is on Tuesday (June 12!), so please contact your representative or senator immediately if you want to make your voice heard.


If you want to talk to me about either how to support it or any concerns you have with it, please comment and I will do my best to respond, or maybe someone who knows more about it will respond. I know that there can be issues with bills that aren’t immediately evident on the surface and I am open to hearing about that. The reason I support this, though, is that this would make a difference in my life, and the lives of other fat people, in a number of ways. For example, when I apply for a job I am seriously worried every time that I will not get it because I am fat.


What I mean when I say that is this: I could go in for an interview. I could blow everyone away. And I could get a call the next day where someone literally said to me, “Wow, you are really smart and qualified and articulate and passionate, but you know what? I really don’t think you fit with the image of the company, so we are not going to hire you because you are fat.” If that happens, right now, I cannot do anything. I have no recourse.


I also regularly go to the doctor for whatever problem I have and my weight is focused on as the problem, even when it is clearly not relevant. If I switch jobs, even if I get past the hurdle I just mentioned, I can be denied insurance or forced to pay a higher premium because of my weight.


I know that, realistically, this bill will not prevent those things from happening (I definitely know that the whole answer is not through legislative action). I think it will, however, both a) give me more peace of mind that at least this is form of discrimination is validated as a problem, and that possibly the people who do the hiring, the doctors, etc have had some education on it, and b) give people some leverage if they want to call someone out for being actively discriminatory based on size—because, right now, unless I am in San Francisco or Michigan, people can be actively discriminatory on the basis of weight, and be fine under law. That is why I want to get this passed.


That said, i want to warn people, not surprisingly, that if this does start to get press coverage (which, you will read below, is not the goal, because it will spark an anti-obesity backlash), a lot of what the fat activists will say is that "fat is the last acceptable prejudice." And to be quite honest, I think that is bullshit. We live in a horrifyingly oppressive culture and I know that you can not hire people on the basis of other characteristics (history of convictions, gender identity in a lot of places, etc.), but I do think that this is a serious, huge (ha ha! Get the pun? Huge?) problem and I want to do what I can to work against it.


Also! if anyone wants to do other things--like work to build fat community, do fat positive education in the communities/scenes that we are a part of, do some sort of action somewhere that is actively *not* fat positive, I am always down for that and just want you to tell me!


What follows is the original post I got:

Hi:


I'm Beth Kenny, the legal intern for FLARE, Fat Legal Advocacy, Research, and Education. I'd like to pass along some exciting info...


If you live in Massachusetts or know people there, you (and your East Coast friends) have a chance to make history!


The state legislature in Massachusetts is soon going to decide whether or not to make discrimination based on height or weight illegal.


Here's what you can do to help secure exciting new civil rights for people of all sizes in a whole state...


1. Call or send a letter to legislators in Massachusetts. See the form letter below, along with a link for locating your representatives (if you live in Massachusetts).


2. Testify at the upcoming hearings in Boston. To testify, please contact me, the FLARE intern. I will coordinate people's testimony and will make sure everyone has full info on when and where the hearing is happening. I'm at bkenny_ma@yahoo.com.


3. Try to avoid participating in media coverage of this legislation, as negative press will seriously discourage lawmakers from supporting our cause.


Don't be shy. Help make history!


If you have questions or ideas about how to help get this historic legislation passed, please let us know. Thanks tons for your help.


Sincerely,
Beth Kenny
FLARE legal intern
bkenny_ma@yahoo.com.

* * *
Find out who your legislators are:
http://www.wheredoivotema.com
Or, if you already know their names, find your legislators’ contact information:
http://www.mass.gov/legis/.
* * *
SAMPLE LETTER
Dear Rep. ________ (or Sen. _________)

I’m writing to ask you to support (or thank you for supporting) H.1844, which will add height and weight to the anti-discrimination law. People of all sizes deserve basic respect, and large people in particular are routinely discriminated against in employment, health care and education.


(If applicable, here you can write, “I have faced discrimination....”)


Thank you,


your name

your address



CO-SPONSORS: Rep. Christine Canavan, Rep. Linda Forry, Rep. Gloria Fox, Rep. Willie Mae Allen, Rep. Matthew Patrick, Rep. Carl Sciortino, Rep. Benjamin Swan, Rep. Timothy Toomey, Rep. Marty Walz, Sen. Susan Fargo


COMMITTEE MEMBERS:
Rep. David Torrisi, Chair, Sen. Thomas McGee, Sen. Pamela Resor, Sen. Patricia Jehlen, Sen. Edward Augustus, Sen. Steven Tolman, Sen. Robert Hedlund, Rep. John Scibak, Rep. Paul Casey, Rep. Colleen Garry, Rep. Demetrius Atsalis, Rep. Barbara L’Italian, Rep. Sean Curran, Rep. Marty Walz, Rep. Thomas Calther, Rep. Paul Loscocco, Rep. Karyn Polito

The Shirley Q. Liquor Saga: What a Racist Minstrel Show Says About Queer Politics (Long)

Also see Mark's post on Shirley Q. Liquor here.

Charles Knipp is a white gay man who dresses in drag as a black woman, using classical “blackface” themes (dark makeup, huge lips, the most offensive and demeaning stereotypes). Knipp’s show may be worthy of disdain and outrage, but the response to his show from all sides says some important things about the state of politics in the queer community. While the response from Knipp’s defenders is appalling in its naiveté and contempt for black suffering, the response from many of his detractors points to major weaknesses in radical queer organizing.

First, let’s talk about Knipp’s defenders. I have not seen Shirley Q. Liquor live, but I have heard some YouTube clips and, I’m sorry, but Knipp’s performance is unequivocally racist and disgusting. I have heard every excuse and rationalization of Knipp’s performance his apologists could think of. His defenders say that the show is actually inviting us to “laugh” at racist stereotypes (similar to the excuses offered for the Snickers ad campaign). Knipp’s defenders also say that his minstrel show is okay because some black people, especially RuPaul, think it’s funny. Others argue that because his show has some basis in reality (there actually are black women who are similar to Liquor), that the show should go on.

If the gay community represented the cutting edge of anti-racist politics, and my friends and I had not encountered racism in the gay community so much, I might say that these justifications were wrongheaded, but understandable. If the gay community were mature and sophisticated on race issues, I would say, yes, maybe we can laugh at racial stereotypes. But the gay community does have serious problems with racism, and consequently excuses for Knipp have been made by people who do not live in reality, but would rather see the world through the fantasies of American white supremacist discourse.

In white supremacist Candy Land, segregation and racial discrimination are over. In this alternate universe, they ended when Martin Luther King made some speech about “not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character,” subsequently warming the hearts of white people in Congress who out of the goodness of their white hearts bestowed upon us Negroes civil rights. In white supremacist Candy Land, racism and discrimination are so over, in fact, that we can proclaim that “gay is the new black.”

Blacks, who by and large still suffer from segregation in education and housing, experience widespread discrimination in employment, have to deal with a wage and unemployment gap that has not gotten much better since the 1960s, and must continually face injustice in the so-called criminal “justice” system, have simply disappeared from the radar of many gays. Black oppression has taken a back seat to the oppression white gay men, some of whom proclaim that gay oppression is not just comparable to racial oppression, but has supplanted racial oppression!

Now let’s take the Shirley Q. Liquor minstrel show in the context of a world in which blacks still suffer from widespread racism and discrimination. You really do have to take that seriously in order to understand the outrage. Read the comments at Jasmyne Cannick’s website about Shirley Q. Liquor and you will notice that there are few comments about the concrete nature of racism—there may, in fact, be no comments about this. I do not recall a single comment about how the stereotypes promoted by Knipp reinforce a destructive and deadly regime against black Americans in this country. Instead the comments were about how this show “offended” black people and how blacks should not be “offended.”

So I want to say this to the oblivious, uncritical philistines who defend Knipp very clearly: This is not about my feelings or the “feelings” of any other black person. This is about the pernicious culture of racism that still exists in this country. We are pissed off because Knipp is reinforcing a racist culture which has real, concrete effects on the people we love. It is only people who live in the la-la land of white supremacy that talk about being offended and so-called “political correctness” as if these were the only issues.

And it has been well established that the fog of white supremacist ideology blinds everyone, regardless of race or color. Do a little more research on the black experience in America beyond the whitewashed (pun intended), high school black history surveys we are spoon-fed and you will see that black political consciousness is uneven, and in all historical periods there was a segment of the black community that apologized for racism and argued against decisive action to end racism. So citing people of color who support or reinforce racism to justify racism is just silly. I don’t care if RuPaul supports Knipp, and I don’t care how many blacks you trot out to defend him. That show is racist, period. That this pedestrian “some-people-of-color-agree” argument is continually brought up despite its obvious weaknesses is really a testament to the failure of anti-racist activists to make their voices heard.

And that leads me to my point about Liquor’s critics. As angry as I sound, one might think that I approve entirely of the response to Knipp’s minstrel show. I do not. I think the uproar over Shirley Q. Liquor illuminates serious problems among the radical current of the queer movement. Our responses show that radicals have officially prioritized peripheral, cultural expressions of heterosexism in their conceptualization of political activity.

The bulk of queer radical organizing seems to have coalesced around haphazardly attacking cultural expressions and symbols (e.g. Macy’s for removing gay mannequins, Shirley Q. Liquor, Snickers ads, politically wrongheaded events by the LGBT community). The problem is that, traditionally, cultural expressions do not seem to be the focus of political action by radical groups. Historically, successful radical groups such as SNCC, the Black Panthers, ACT UP, etc seem to have coalesced around issues that concretely struck at the heart of the white and heterosexual supremacist superstructures respectively (e.g. voting rights, segregation in businesses, police brutality, urban poverty, and criminal indifference to AIDS).

Radical politics should always entail responses to cultural expressions and sharp critiques of them, but responses to cultural expressions cannot replace work that actually gets at the core of discriminatory and bigoted structures. This kind of work must be our priority, but judging from what I have seen from many radical queer groups, we have it backwards. I am not suggesting that we ignore cultural expressions that disparage people of color or queer people. Rather, I am arguing for a re-prioritization where the cultural field is no longer primary field in which we confront heterosexual supremacy.

And so, abstractly speaking, Shirley Q. Liquor may be worthy of protest. In the context of queer activism, the response looks problematic to me. It reflects a disturbing tendency among radical queers to focus most of our attention on cultural expressions of homophobia and racism. But until we begin organize, in a systematized and consistent fashion, around issues that concretely deal with oppressive structures, we will just be spitting in the wind. We may get clubs to stop hosting Shirley Q. Liquor, but we will do little to address the structures of white supremacy.