In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Buy Ford

Lauren

Why? Because the AFA is boycotting them.

The AFA, the nonprofit group run by the Rev. Donald Wildmon, criticized Ford for donating money to gay-rights organizations (Ford offers to give up to $1,000 to the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Discrimination for every Jaguar and Land Rover it sells to a member of GLAAD, the company said this week). The group also complained that had Ford sponsored gay pride celebrations, advertised in gay-oriented publications and was “redefining the definition of the family to include homosexual marriage,” Randy Sharp, the organization’s director of special projects, said Tuesday.

If anything, Ford says, the AFA is not giving it enough credit.

Marcey Evans, a spokeswoman for the company, said in an interview Wednesday that the AFA was misusing “diversity” by treating it as a code word for “homosexuality.” But “to Ford, diversity is a much broader definition than simply homosexuality,” she said. “Diversity is very important to Ford, and it goes beyond homosexuality.”

This move by Ford may also be about the new turn against buying large trucks and SUVs, but then, I’m a cynic.

16 thoughts on Buy Ford

  1. Interestingly enough, both GM and Daimler Chrysler offer the same benefits to their homosexual employees, yet AFA has nothing to say regarding those companies.

  2. And all this to get a piece of Subaru’s market? Everyone knows that Subaru is the official automaker of G/L/B/T equality, right?

    I’m really glad to see Ford standing up to these bullies.

  3. agh. Fords suck. See? Found On Road Dead. I call mine the “fucked up Ford.” Don’t buy them bc they suck and in about 5 years it will need a major engine overhaul. GM is nice and they announced this week that they are selling their vehicles for the same price an employee would pay, which is factory and at about a 60% discount than sticker price.

  4. Nut, all the American makers suck, and cannot get the public to buy their products without huge rebates. GM shouldn’t be lauded for offering discounts — they can’t sell the cars any other way. Part of this is decades of poor build quality and reliability, and part of it is bad, uninspired design. (Pontiac Aztek, anyone?)

    This is not the fault of the American workforce, however, who turn out reliable Hondas and Nissans at much higher profit margins.

    I’m no Ford partisan — to the extent I have any rooting interest, it’s mostly to European marques, and to the extent I prefer the classic American cars of one company, I like GM.

  5. Remember that Ford owns, wholly or partly, the following companies: Lincoln, Mercury, Mazda, Volvo, Jaguar, Land Rover, and Aston Martin. So feel good about buying that new Aston Martin.

    The main “other” company GM owns is Saab now. GM also bought a minority share (20%, I think) in Subaru in order to use its all-wheel drive in a couple of Saab models (at least that’s what it seems like).

  6. It’s clear that Ford is trying to appeal to as many people as they can, which is a good business strategy for a company facing bankruptcy.

    SUV sales are way down and its really hurting a lot of American car manufacturers. This is caused by two main reasons – one is the rise of gas prices, duh. The other reason is the fact that the baby boomers – the SUV’s biggest market – are getting older and their nests are emptying. They don’t need gigantic cars anymore.

    Under the guise of social responsibility and equality, its important to remember that as a major “for-profit” company, profit is the top priority here.

  7. Kyle said: Under the guise of social responsibility and equality, its important to remember that as a major “for-profit” company, profit is the top priority here.

    absolutely. Ford Motor Co. is not “standing up to bullies” nor are they interested in equality for gays & lesbians. they are simply exploring niche markets in a desperate attempt to stem their plummeting share of the market (i.e., their fatal investment in SUVs, as already mentioned).

    & since i’ve got my Mr. Grumpy hat on may i also point out that buying Ford is not going to help anyone. except Ford.

    grump grump grump…

    it is a beautiful day, tho’
    (just wanted to say something positive)

  8. Jam, all my socially responsible investor friends would want me to point out that our choices as consumers and as investors can make a difference. We can raise margins and lower the cost of capital for the companies that do things we like, and lower margins and raise the cost of capital for companies that do things we don’t like. It all depends on how many of us there are on any issue and how big our impact is proportionately, but companies will change behaviors that they believe will cost them money.

    The fundamentalists are trying to tell Ford that they will cost Ford market share if its Volvo and other units keep seeking the g/l/b/t market. Ford is going to make a determination whether it can make more money caving in or standing up. I think they think the support of g/l/b/t buyers for their cars will be longer lasting and more profitable than the few marginal angry conservatives that buy Chevy instead of Ford.

    Also, since both Ford and Chevy are on their asses with junk-bond credit ratings, their cost of capital is sky-high. If investors shun them for social reasons in addition to their terrible business performance, they’re in even bigger trouble.

  9. haha, I forgot to mention that GM is reducing their costs bc they’re broke and need to sell cars. GM/Pontiac/Chrysler go together don’t they? I love the new Dodge Magnums but my brain is telling me to invest in a hybrid to help save the environment and all that stuff.

    Hardly do any large corporations give “breaks” because they feel it in their heart to do so. Profit is the #1 motivator for all businesses and companies, isn’t it?

    I saw on PBS (I think) that Chryslers are selling like hotcakes over in Japan. Now isn’t that a switch….

  10. Nut, Dodge is part of DaimlerChrysler. Chevy, Pontiac, GMC, Buick, Saturn, Hummer and Cadillac are part of GM.

  11. Thomas writes: Jam, all my socially responsible investor friends would want me to point out that our choices as consumers and as investors can make a difference. We can raise margins and lower the cost of capital for the companies that do things we like, and lower margins and raise the cost of capital for companies that do things we don’t like. It all depends on how many of us there are on any issue and how big our impact is proportionately, but companies will change behaviors that they believe will cost them money.

    perhaps if it is part of organized boycott campaign or some other political action, but in general i have a pretty dim view of “consumer activism”… given the realities of international capitalism, i don’t think the marginal impact that such actions have make that much of a difference, nor do they substitute for real political action. the idea, for instance, that you can invest only in “socially responsible” companies is about as specious a claim as the one currently running around that boycotting certain gasoline stations will help keep terrorists from getting bomb money…

    not to mention the incredibly loose definition that the phrase “socially responsible” is usually allowed. my sweetie was given the option of a “socially responsible” investment plan at a former job for her 401K (or whatever the retirement code is) – do you know who headed the list of “socially responsible” companies? Wal-Mart!

    grump, i say! grump!

  12. I’ve had a Jeep Liberty ever since The Great Civic Scrape of 2004. My Honda was fine, but a two-door, and a total pain in the ass with Ethan having to sit in the backseat.

    My brother-in-law works for DaimlerChrysler and we were able to get the Jeep just above cost. I love it, but wish it got better gas mileage. The extra room is great considering all the shit I haul around on a regular basis. The Honda just couldn’t handle my stuff.

    If I had the choice again, I don’t know that I would switch back, though an Accord seems mighty nice these days…

  13. JAM — Wal-Mart? All the SRI folks I know haaaaate Wal-Mart for its labor practices and borg-like destruction of Main Street. What shitty fake SRI fund was your sweetie offered? Who was the fund manager? It’s useful information to me.

    Also, on SRI and consumer activism as a whole, I guess it’s a question of what the alternative is. If you’re talking about upper middle class people who are going to hold U.S. equities, I would rather they do something with that money to penalize bad actors than do nothing. The number of people willing to invest in a screened fund is much larger that the number willing to join organized boycotts of stuff that they would otherwise buy.

  14. Thomas writes: JAM — Wal-Mart? All the SRI folks I know haaaaate Wal-Mart for its labor practices and borg-like destruction of Main Street. What shitty fake SRI fund was your sweetie offered? Who was the fund manager? It’s useful information to me.

    it was TIAA-CREF, hardly a shitty fake fund. i just checked their site & it looks like they no longer include Wal-Mart so i guess they finally clued in. i do remember at the time that they didn’t even have “labor practices” as a criteria.

    they do, however, still include such socially responsible luminaries as Coca Cola & McDonald’s. (go here & look for the PDF file called “CREF Statement of Investments” – it’s right at the top)

    Also, on SRI and consumer activism as a whole, I guess it’s a question of what the alternative is. If you’re talking about upper middle class people who are going to hold U.S. equities, I would rather they do something with that money to penalize bad actors than do nothing.

    like i said earlier, i really don’t believe that SRI “penalizes” the baddies in any substantial way, other than make their marketing department work a little harder to figure out what new way they’re going sell themselves as the “good guys” – i’d rather such folks give their money to some group like Jobs with Justice. it’d do easily as much good, if not more.

    The number of people willing to invest in a screened fund is much larger that the number willing to join organized boycotts of stuff that they would otherwise buy.

    yah, depressing, ain’t it? but if the screening allows such folks as Coke & Ronnie McD to the table, what’s the point?

  15. hmm…. re-reading what i just wrote i wanted to clarify one thing – where i wrote:

    i really don’t believe that SRI “penalizes” the baddies in any substantial way

    please now read as: i really don’t believe that SRI – divorced from political organizing/action – “penalizes” the baddies in any substantial way.

    just to be clear.

  16. You know, Jam, I don’t entirely disagree, and I’m not an evangelist for screening (though I don’t take TIAA-CREF all that seriously as SRI- I tend to think of the dedicated SRI managers like Pax, Walden, Calvert, Domini, Trillium, etc.). I think SRI is valuable in part because it provides a living for shareholder activists, watchdogs and gadflies. I’m a big fan of organized shareholder activism, because it’s harder to spin that away.

    I’m also a big fan of community investing, which I think really can put money where it does some good.

Comments are currently closed.