I didn't know that so many people felt so much about Curves for Women. Pineapple Girl has delivered a post about it as well. She describes Gary Heavin, CEO of Curves, as "pushing a Christian agenda to franchisees", citing this article as her source. While I agree with her first paragraph which basically states that he has the right to donate to whomever he wants to and so on, I really do not believe that he is pushing any religious agenda on anyone. Some of the franchises are Jewish, some not religious, and he does not force anyone to be anything they don't want to be.
I would like to comment on her critique of Heavin's statement, "...and that's a tragedy because of the need to put values in our boardrooms and classrooms." I don't believe that this is technically incorrect, or wrong. We just need to clarify what he means by Christian values. If he means values such as fairness, tolerance, high personal standards, compassion, responsibility, goodwill (intent) and community service (action), then I don't believe that these are such bad values to instill. I mean, really, aren't you sick of these self-styled kings that have no connection to reality and screw everyone that makes less than them so royally, and then think it unjust if they don't get away with it? I am. The real issue is when you think that these values are strictly Christian, as though patented. Or as though non-Christians, or non-Baptists, for non-Southern Baptists, simply do not have these values.
Now as far as the anti-choice thing goes, I agree with PG when she says that Heavin can do whatever he wants within the law. I am not sure that boycotting an organization that is pro-life (because I really do not believe that they are anti-choice, per se, but I suppose that's another discussion) is necessarily a feasible idea given our nature. PG is asking for a fairly strategic move, rather than a tactical move that pleases us, personally, now. And we should know by now just how bad we are at that. Still, great things have happened in that we have been able to pull together for certain causes to make things happen. I'm just not sure boycotting does any good. I'll have to look for cases where it actually did have an impact, and not just to do things like bring back your favourite show.
I have a feeling that people are far more likely to get out there and defend their favourite show than defend their favourite group of human beings.
Posted by JonasParker at April 22, 2004 11:01 AM | TrackBackYou may be right about people not willing to act to defend more than their favorite tv show, although I hope you are wrong. But whether or not "boycotting" Curves would cause Heavin to change his views and/or his actions (which I doubt, given his strongly expressed beliefs), the great thing is that I am free to choose not to give my money to him, and thereby indirectly to the causes he chooses to support. Even if it makes no difference in the long run, I've at least stood my ground and supported my belief system, which is the same thing Heavin is doing, and which we are both, fortunately, free to do.
I belonged to Curves for a year and for most of that time was unaware of Heavin's "moral code"; I never felt anyone was pushing my toward a Christian agenda except for the occasional Christian rock background music, which I didn't love but could live with. However, I was also unaware that for every franchise that raises money for a community cause, he donates $1000 toward Operation Save America-related groups. So there are, I'm sure, plenty of women out there who have contributed to local fundraising events unaware that they were indirectly contributing to anti-choice organization. And that frankly stinks. So whether my $29/month makes a difference or not, at least in ceasing to give it to him I know I'm being true to my own "moral code" just as Heavin has.
Posted by: jen at April 27, 2004 01:49 PMI think a boycott will stop Heavin dead in his tracks. I totally agree with Pound - Curves CEO Gary Heavin's morality will take a back seat to his pocket book if it comes to a choice. I would say that is the only choice men tend to understand, but it isn't fair to overgeneralize here.
As a man, Heavin talks a good game, but his actions speak much louder than his words. He professes he became wealthy because of his love and concern for women and because of his "christian values". If true, then his public stance on a woman's right to choose is puzzling to me and his stint in prison for failing to pay child support even more so. Come ON - guys who don't pay child support don't go to jail unless they are total deadbeats! Oh that's right - he got religion in jail. That is almost as hokey as his story about looking for his mother in the crowd.
It seems to me that his "love and concern for women" are more likely tied to his pocketbook rather than his morals. I mean, what else WOULD he say in interviews? That there are millions of fat women out there with money to burn and low self-esteem and he has found a way to profit from it?
Out of two million Curves members, I would guess that the highest percentage are women who still want the right to choose even though they may not exercise it themselves. A smaller percent are women who want the right and would exercise it. And another, possibly the smallest percentage are anti-abortion all the way. But even giving the benefit of the doubt and saying they're evenly distributed across the board, he must realize that they are all woman who are personally and deeply affected by these issues.
Heavin is taking a huge financial risk and I am wondering why? If moral issues are the real reason, he could easily donate all the millions he wants in private without making any public reference at all.
Why take such a huge risk? The whole media thing reeks of plain and simple arrogance to me. What if his wealth was obtained via his "disdain for fat women" rather than the moral virtues he professes and he simply found a way to profit from it?
In my experience "Christianity" is a powerful networking tool for a LOT of business people and nothing more. Otherwise we wouldn't have so many "Christians" screwing you over in business deals. It raises a red flag to me when a bible toting "Christian" is "looking out for my best interest" in a business situation - much like a politician does when he start talking about how much he "cares about the people." When it comes down to it - business is business and politics are politics. Morality doesn't mix well with either - not that it shouldn't, it just doesn't. Chances are if a businessman is "only looking out for you" they spell morality m-o-n-e-y. If a person is virtuous and moral then he will act accordingly. But if money is important, then you and your pocketbook stand to lose.
Yes, a boycott is just the ticket to stop him dead in his tracks. The individual franchise owners will suffer first, but they will begin complaining that members are quitting, or not renewing their memberships because of his anti-abortion stance. Some will threaten and actually file lawsuits. Yes, the smell of money will get to a lot of them too. After all, Heavin "gives" away millions why not get a piece of it too?
Ultimately Heavin may not stop funding the anti-abortion cause - who can say - because it is his right to do so, but he will assuredly avoid public disclosure if possible.
I personally think he will be too busy funding the blood sucking lawyers to further any private or public funding of ANY moral issue, much less anti-abortion.
But that's just my humble opinion.
Posted by: wynona at April 30, 2004 05:01 PM