As the Washington blade reports:
Elton John is among those who support a boycott of gay fashion designers Domenico Dolce and Stefano Gabbana’s label over their controversial comments about children conceived through in vitro fertilization. “You are born and you have a father and a mother, or at least it should be so,” said Dolce during an interview that Panorama, an Italian website, featured in its March 12 issue. “You cannot convince me of what I call children of chemistry, and synthetic children: Wombs for rent, seeds selected from a catalog.” …
“How dare you refer to my beautiful children as ‘synthetic,’” wrote John, using the hashtag #BoycottDolceGabbana. “And shame on you for wagging your judgmental little fingers at IVF—a miracle that has allowed legions of loving people, both straight and gay…
I have no issue with anyone publicly stating they won’t be purchasing products or services because they find the expressed views of the business owners insulting or bigoted, or when (apparently not the case with Dolce & Gabbana) the profits of the business are being used to support efforts that are viewed with disdain. Your money, your choice.
By the same token, those who think the personal or political views of business owners should not be a factor in purchasing decisions have that right as well. As Gabbana responded to John’s boycott, “You preach understanding, tolerance and they you attack others? Only because someone has a different opinion?”
Boycotts of this kind become problematic when government gets involved, as when liberal local officials threatened to zone out Chick fil A franchises because the owning family funded groups opposing same-sex marriage (the company says it no longer contributes to anti-gay marriage groups).
The decision to purchase or not purchase is an individual one. Efforts to press companies to change their support or opposition to political causes (that is, boycott organizing) is part of social pressure and lobbying that takes place in civil society. Dolce and Gabbana have rights to express their views, and Elton John and Ricky Martin can take exception and urge consumers to boycott the company. Some will see that as another kind of intolerance, and others will view it as appropriate.
Efforts to outlaw political speech deemed offensive, or to use the power of the state to punish those who exercise their legal rights to engage in the political process, is where we should always draw the line.
36 Comments for “To Buy or Not to Buy”
posted by Jorge on
(And yet he had no problem working with Eminem.)
I’m sure Elton John knows what he’s doing throwing the gay card around and finger-wagging like that… but I don’t. And I don’t think anyone should take his word for it as a celebrity, either (that’s kind of oxymoronic).
There are legitimate ethical issues with using artificial means of creating life that should be respected. The United States Congress has chosen to draw the line by banning human cloning. President Bush has noted that promising stem cell research exists at the expense of frozen embryos–created for in vitro fertilization. He determined that it was ethical for the US government to fund research on existing stem cell lines, but not to fund the research from any new embryos–which would be destroyed. Congress and the previous president sought to forestall the end result of using technology to create artificial life–the devaluing of human life and the dignity of each person to such an extent that we revert to human sacrifice in the name of perfecting the individual or the human condition. The addition of a child to one’s family should be something of value in itself, not something that takes away from the miracle of life.
I don’t know about the UK, but in the United States those who oppose in vitro fertilization are a distinct minority (I imagine many more silently shun it). That does not make it socially right. Neither does Elton John’s anger. In a free society, not everyone will agree with any one ethical or religious judgment. What makes it right is the care that is taken to protect our most important values. When people disagree on issues with such high stakes as human life, these differences deserve to be heard and respected. We need to be confident we’re coming to the best decision for the right reasons.
Well, since I supported President Bush’s decision, I suppose I’m forced to ask on behalf of the life-begins-at-conception religious right, how beautiful Mr. John thinks his (and/or his donor’s) other children are–the ones that never made it to a womb and have been frozen, discarded, or harvested in the name of science. Seems to me he protests too much about people judging others because he has some ambivalence about how he became a father, whether he realizes it or not.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
While I recognize that the Catholic Church opposes IVF and other forms of assisted reproduction, it seems to me that the decision to use (or not to use) IVF is a matter, like artificial birth control and abortion, that should be left to individiual moral conscience rather than dictated by the government.
posted by Doug on
Bravo ! Get the right wing out of my bedroom and private life.
posted by Jorge on
I fundamentally disagree. The government has a very important role in moral decisions, especially one that is representative of the people. It was right of the US government to ban human cloning outright, and it is right of the US government to defer to individuals on in vitro fertilization. Evil triumphs when good people do nothing.
posted by Doug on
Whose morals is the government playing a role in, yours or mine? Therein lies the problem.
posted by Jorge on
Then maybe you should vote. And if you are voting, maybe you should convince other people of your view.
You speak as if “morals” are nothing more than magic or unicorns. They are not. Morals are based on actual realities, known or unknown, and embody a person’s or society’s considered opinion about how to weigh competing interests. It is terribly important to get moral questions right, and in this country our society makes social decisions through government action.
posted by Doug on
Voting has nothing to do with morals. Portions of this country voted for slavery but that does not make it moral. Your church does not think the death penalty is moral but many voters in this country have approved it.
posted by tom Jefferson 3rd on
Frankly, I really don’t care what fashion designes or even Elton John have to say about in vitro fertilization. Why should I care?
Yes, I certainly like Elton John’s music and his charity work. I also agree with him that attacking in vitro fertilization is cruel and ignorant.
However, does Italy (where the fashion designer is from) allow vitro fertilization? Are they planning to ban it anytime soon.
Context of speech should matter in terms of how much outrage I am going to put into something stupid and ignorant that some celebrity said.
posted by Houndentenor on
Italy is currently debating laws on IVF, so it is a hot topic there. Why the opinion of fashion designers is relevant, I could not tell you. For the same reason that the opinion of actors on political races seems to the US media culture I suppose. In other words, because lazy and stupid reporters.
posted by Jorge on
Italy is currently debating laws on IVF
Oops!
posted by tom Jefferson 3rd on
Also, with Chick-fil-a their was some concern – in terms of government involvement – for gay employees at the fast food chain. Did the restaurant plan n following the equal opportunity law or was it going to “pull a Hobby Lobby”?
posted by Kosh III on
“Efforts to outlaw political speech deemed offensive, or to use the power of the state to punish those who exercise their legal rights to engage in the political process, is where we should draw the line. ”
Too bad you wouldn’t draw the line when it was the Dixie Chicks being attacked for excercising the right to speak.
As to D&G I’ve never worn their overpriced crap and never will. They’re just hypocritical self-hating fags.
posted by Houndentenor on
More ridiculous hyperbole on the right. Efforts to suppress “hate speech” will fail in the US because of the 1st amendment. It’s just a scare tactic from right wingers who bristle at any criticism of what they say. D&G said something stupid, are ineptly attempting to walk it back, and failing. PR matters to companies whose only product is a brand and people willing to pay far too much for crappy clothes. I’ll say about this exactly what I said about the Dixie Chicks in 2003. They have a right to say whatever they want but people also have a right to like that or not and to buy tickets/recordings or not. Actions have consequences and it’s odd that people whose entire business is based on their public image (much more so than the actual product) wouldn’t know that. But then the uber-wealthy and the famous are often divorced from reality (at least in my experience working for them).
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Efforts to outlaw political speech deemed offensive, or to use the power of the state to punish those who exercise their legal rights to engage in the political process, is where we should draw the line.
Well, of course.
The Chik-fil-A flap was akin to a bunch of drunks on a bender, staggering around, falling into each other, shouting nonsense back and forth at each other, making a lot of noise to no effect. A few politicians made stupid statements, but this was not a Westboro Bapist situation where lawmakers introduced and worked to enact laws that supressed free speech. Conservative Christians and their allies went wild. Civil libertarians (most notably, the ACLU, which can almost always be counted on to defend free speech) condemned the stupid statements for what they were — stupid, out of line, and unconstitutional.
In the end, for all the noise, nothing happened other than to enshrine Chik-fil-A into conservative hagiography as an outrage, which is as stupid as the statements of the few politicians who went on a bender over Dan Cathy’s statements, because no attempt was made to actually “use the power of the state to punish those who exercise their legal rights to engage in the political process”. Chik-fil-A has no significant other than as a shouting point for conservatives.
A more serious attempt to “use the power of the state to punish those who exercise their legal rights to engage in the political process” was the attempt, some years ago, to suppress the hate speech of Westboro Baptist Church at military and other funerals. Legislators in quite a number of states proposed laws to outlaw the demonstrations, and a number of the proposed bills nearly made it into law. As was the case in other attempts to supress free speech, the ACLU and other civil libertarians fought back, and, in the end, the laws that were enacted meet constitutional muster.
Free speech — most particularly, unpopular and offensive free speech (flag burning/desecration comes to mind) — should always be defended against those who would “use the power of the state to punish those who exercise their legal rights to engage in the political process”.
Although it has nothing to do with the flap in question, I’m glad you made the point, Stephen.
posted by Jorge on
…because no attempt was made to actually “use the power of the state to punish those who exercise their legal rights to engage in the political process”
Sorry, no. The former New York City Council Speaker, Christine Quinn, who is openly gay, wrote a letter on her official letterhead to New York University discouraging it from accepting a new lease by Chick-fil-A. And while she was running for mayor, no less. Even here, she was generally criticized for it.
You talk about people making “stupid statements”, Tom. Some politicians cross the line into making stupid decisions. And just for fun, may I point out they’re not all named Jeb Bush.
I didn’t make the connection between this controversy and “Dolce & Gabbana” until reading this blog post.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Sorry, no. The former New York City Council Speaker, Christine Quinn, who is openly gay, wrote a letter on her official letterhead to New York University discouraging it from accepting a new lease by Chick-fil-A. And while she was running for mayor, no less. Even here, she was generally criticized for it.
Quinn wrote a letter. She expressed her views to another governmental agency that took no action as far as I know.
It was stupid, but it wasn’t a “use of the power of the state to punish those who exercise their rights to engage in the political process”. Like those of the Chicago alderman and the Boston mayor, it was a stupid statement, but not an exercise of power.
And, as you point out, civil libertarians called her out on it, and she backed off, if I recall right.
So how was this a “use of the power of the state”, different in any respect from the actions of the alderman or the mayor?
It wasn’t. So, I guess, sorry yes.
posted by Jorge on
Quinn wrote a letter. She expressed her views to another governmental agency that took no action as far as I know.
New York University is not a government agency. It is a private university.
She was not merely expressing her personal opinion. She was making a veiled threat as the head of New York City’s legislature to perform an official government or political action, either forwarding an unfavorable bill, or, more likely, taking an unfavorable action on a so-called member item that might impact the university.
There’s a reason New York University didn’t take any action. The center-left tabloid (the NY Daily News) immediately condemned it. Chick-fil-A also had the support of Mayor Bloomberg. It was not because it resisted her bluff on its own.
Niavete ill suits you, Tom.
posted by Houndentenor on
Just another reason I would not have supported Quinn for mayor. That entire episode was embarrassing. It’s fine to personally disapprove of Chick-Fil-A and it’s leadership, but there is no legal reason to prevent them from opening stores in any location zoned so that any other food chain could open a store. I was embarrassed for for the idiots that took such positions not only because what they were advocating was illegal but because most of them clearly hadn’t bothered to understand the issues at hand.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Niavete ill suits you, Tom.
So, Jorge, what came of Quinn’s letter? Nothing, absolutely nothing, except that “left/liberals” who understood the stupidity of her letter and valued civil liberties quickly backed her down. Nothing happened. That’s exactly what happened in the handful of other instances (Boston, Chicago, for example) where politicians threatened Chik-fil-A. So why is Quinn’s case different?
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Not to be snide, but never having heard of Dolce & Gabbana, I checked out their online store.
Good G-d — $750 for a pair of jeans? You’ve got to be kidding.
Elton John and Ricky Martin are boycotting in rarified air, and that’s a fact.
posted by Lori Heine on
The only reason I even know that Dolce & Gabbana exist is because I used to watch Sex and the City. Unless I win the lottery, there isn’t even a question that I’d ever shop there. And because I’m cheap, I probably wouldn’t anyway.
Elton John and Ricky Martin boycotting them is akin to staging a hunger strike at Vassar. Only the extremely privileged are going to care. To everyone else, it just seems silly.
posted by Houndentenor on
LOL Just last month I was laughing at people who were planning to boycott the movie 50 Shades of Grey. “Were you planning to see the movie at any time?” I asked. They weren’t. Then they aren’t boycotting. Yes, I’m not going to buy any D&G products. I also won’t be buying any caviar or Rolls Royces either. That’ll show ’em!
posted by Wilberforce on
D&G designs are too flashy and busy for my taste anyway. Their morality is idiotic. They’re pro family but only with IVF. Funny how they’re so ok with gay sex. Isn’t that an attack on traditional marriage?
As for Stephen’s pearl clutching about government involvement, please. The dreaded gay left beat him to it, and liberal officials quickly backed down. So why even mention it, except to throw shade on government for the nine hundredth time this week.
posted by Houndentenor on
There are a few here who are social conservatives except when it comes to their own personal business. Other than that they side with the same right-wingers who work against them. Never underestimate the power of cognitive dissonance.
Also, as for D&G and so many others, I find “this is how I was raised” to be a poor excuse for anything. By all means keep the good parts of your upbringing, but we as adults have a responsibility to reject the bad. I was raised in a highly racist culture. Would that be an excuse for me being racist as an adult? Certainly not. So why is that a valid excuse for anti-gay bigotry and other nonsense?
posted by Wilberforce on
I think it’s more cognitive dissonance. That’s usually the game when insulting others.
posted by Houndentenor on
And to touch on another point you made, the gay sex is okay because they want to do that. The IVF is wrong because they don’t want to do that anyway. It reminds me of how both Dear Abby and Ann Landers were against divorce for decades until THEY got divorced, then it was okay. People are funny that way.
posted by Houndentenor on
For a little background, IVF and gay marriage are currently hotly debated topics in Italy (separately as well as jointly), but I’m still baffled that anyone would ask fashion designers their views on IVF or adoption or any similar topic. This is just another example of a sick media culture so obsessed with celebrities that they’d rather talk to a famous person than someone who actually has some knowledge or experience with the topic at hand.
posted by JohnInCA on
I’m confused on why people think this is just about IVF. D&G weren’t shy (with their original statements at least, I understand they’ve since walked back some of them) about their criticism of *all* families headed by a gay couple. Yeah, including those that *adopted*.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I suspect that IVF — as opposed to artificial insemination or other assisted reproductive methods — became the headliner because Elton John reacted.
The statement itself, through, was pretty bad: “You are born to a mother and a father, or at least that’s how it should be. I call children of chemistry, synthetic children. Rented uterus, semen chosen from a catalog.”.
Synthetic children? I doubt that the interview would have made a flap at all if the attack had been a standard denunciation of IVF, aimed at the parents — the sort of thing that Jorge posted — rather than at the children.
Whatever anyone may think about the parents or about IVF, the children (including a couple of my grandchildren) should be out of bounds.
I think that’s what set off Elton John (“How dare you refer to my beautiful children as ‘synthetic’ …”) and I think that’s what set off the viral reaction.
A subsequent statement from D&G noted that the two “did not judge other people’s decisions”. As far as I am concerned, that just digs the hole deeper. If the two don’t “judge” the parents, but dismiss the children as “synthetic”, then the initial statement was aimed at the children.
I am grateful that the parents of my grandchildren — about to celebrate their first birthday in a few days — adhere to a religious tradition that welcomed them into the world as gifts from G-d instead of a religious tradition that argues that they should not have been conceived, and hence born into the world.
But the views of the Catholic Church and other conservative Christians, views that condemn the parents rather than the children, are one thing. Going after the children is quite another.
posted by Jorge on
When I was in high school, one of my religion teachers, I believe he was a Dominican Friar, once told the class about an instruction he was given about hearing confessions: If the person leaves feeling worse than when he entered, you have done something wrong.
Evidently Mr. Dolce is not a monk.
I’ll start caring about that when non-religious people start taking holy vows… oh **** I keep forgetting liberals already have their speech codes.
posted by Francis on
You clearly have trouble telling mainstream liberals and the New Left apart. Oh, and what about the right-wing tendency to describe muticulturalism and its derivatives as “anti-Christian? What is that if not a “speech-code”?
posted by Jorge on
Oh, and what about the right-wing tendency to describe muticulturalism and its derivatives as “anti-Christian?
The right has many problems with multiculturalism. The anti-Christian complaint is more a derivative of them than its main beef, but it’s more politically correct to call something anti-Christian than anti-white.
You clearly have trouble telling mainstream liberals and the New Left apart.
I am not conflating the two. I merely recognize an ongoing trend in which the former is policing the latter less and less.
posted by Francis on
[i]…but it’s more politically correct to call something anti-Christian than anti-white.[/i]
And here I thought wingnuts hated political correctness. But then I suppose they were always comfortable with double standards.
posted by Jorge on
I’m confused on why people think this is just about IVF.
Yes, I did realize that later. Rather strange.
Seems like the IVF part was a target of opportunity (I’m not just talking about Elton John). Perhaps it is somehow more acceptable to be gay and against gays raising children at all (that battle’s been fought and lost) than to condemn IVF.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Perhaps it is somehow more acceptable to be gay and against gays raising children at all (that battle’s been fought and lost) than to condemn IVF.
That’s because IVF is a widely accepted medical procedure that has allowed many, many straight couples to become parents.
The CDC estimates that roughly 900,000 children in the United States were conceived using IVF, and current estimates are the roughly 70,000 IVF babies are born each year in the United States. Of those, only a tiny minority — several thousand at most — are born of surrogacy. Almost all are born to their “natural” parents, using IVF for conception, and implanting the fertilized eggs into the “natural” mother.
IVF is not an issue in the United States, something that lurks around in the shadows, “shunned” as you put it in an earlier comment. It is so widely accepted that when it was revealed during the 2012 campaign that several of Mitt Romney’s grandchildren were born using IVF, and in the case of two, surrogate mothers, few outside of the fringers raised an eyebrow.
posted by tom Jefferson 3rd on
I never had the desire or disposable income to buy the sort of overpriced, ‘trendy’ fashion advertised on Sex In The City.
I know children that were adopted by straight and gay married couples or kids created via IVF. To suggest that the kids or their parents are some how less than because they were adopted or conceived via IVF is an opinion that I find wholly without merit and entirely malicious.