Author: has written 5268 posts for this blog.

Jill has been blogging for Feministe since 2005.
Return to: Homepage | Blog Index

76 Responses

  1. Jane
    Jane December 11, 2011 at 11:13 am |

    Sometimes it’s hard to not just hate everyone ever. Just . . . ugh.

  2. Seth Eag
    Seth Eag December 11, 2011 at 11:19 am |

    It seems the Florida Family Association is quite an accomplished group.

  3. andie
    andie December 11, 2011 at 11:35 am |

    So basically they’re saying “We don’t like this show because we LIKE our stereotypes, thankyouverymuch and we won’t stand for people trying to undermine our xenophobia”

    The concept sounds similar to Little Mosque on the Prairie (which is a sitcom rather than a reality series). I didn’t think the series was that good, but I did appreciate that the jokes didn’t seem to be aimed at muslims per se, but that people are fully capable of being ridiculous no matter their religious background. Mind you I didn’t want many episodes because I didn’t find it that funny, from a writing and acting standpoint.

  4. Hershele Ostropoler
    Hershele Ostropoler December 11, 2011 at 12:05 pm |

    they are human beings who, shockingly, do not construct their entire existences around their religion.

    No wonder the Florida Family Association doesn’t like it.

    I’ve been not watching the show because it looks platitudinous, but I guess there are people to whom even the platitudes are controversial.

  5. Comrade Kevin
    Comrade Kevin December 11, 2011 at 12:07 pm |

    Everything seems so downright ordinary here. If there were any instances of true extremism present, then I’d understand right-wing reservations. But I just don’t see them.

    I saw on MSNBC or CNN recently that Islam is seen favorably by only 26% of the American people. There was a time before September 11, 2001, where most people didn’t even know or care. I remember I took a class on Islam my senior year of high school; I learned aspects of the religion and culture which most Americans were clueless.

    Now, a few terms about Islam are thrown regularly about as though they demonstrate some sort of simplified proficiency. Islam contains many complications and lots of people have no desire to see the humanity behind it. As a nation, we’re still largely ignorant, but we somehow think that a bastardized version of the truth is all we need to know.

  6. Triplanetary
    Triplanetary December 11, 2011 at 12:07 pm |

    Ugh. There’s literally no legitimate reasoning here. “Portraying Muslims as humans? How dare they!”

  7. Amanda Marcotte
    Amanda Marcotte December 11, 2011 at 12:20 pm |

    Comrade, if they portrayed all Muslims as extremists, conservatives would be cheering. They are *afraid* of TV humanizing Muslims. They rely on ignorance to perpetuate stereotypes.

  8. Jon
    Jon December 11, 2011 at 12:28 pm |

    I saw the show had good numbers of viewers in its debut, but what about the next weeks?

    Not that I want to give those cowardly corporations cover, but I’d like to see the numbers to see if there was a business decision as well as a cowardly one. I know if I was a PR hack for a company that made such a decision, that’s the first thing I’d point toward.

    Unfortunately, I haven’t found the numbers. Based on the Lowe’s comment, neither did they.

  9. Alison
    Alison December 11, 2011 at 12:31 pm |

    I wonder what would happen if an atheist/civil liberties group asked companies to pull their ads from the Duggars’ show or Sister Wives or something.

    P.S. I don’t really wonder. I know what would happen. Nothing.

  10. Skye
    Skye December 11, 2011 at 12:58 pm |

    I’ve long learned that any organization that uses the word “family” in its name is staffed by hateful, cowardly people with a hateful, cowardly agenda.

  11. Bushfire
    Bushfire December 11, 2011 at 1:08 pm |

    Wow, that is a lot of major companies!

  12. Caity
    Caity December 11, 2011 at 1:26 pm |

    People are so stupid/horrible it hurts sometimes. What the heck people? Little Mosque on the Prairie has been on for a few years now and I don’t think there’s been a dramatic upswing in terrorist activites. I doubt we’d see different results with a reality tv show.

  13. Sheelzebub
    Sheelzebub December 11, 2011 at 2:19 pm |

    Alison: I wonder what would happen if an atheist/civil liberties group asked companies to pull their ads from the Duggars’ show or Sister Wives or something.
    P.S. I don’t really wonder. I know what would happen. Nothing.

    Pretty much, though the stench of their rotten double-standards are still quite cloying.

  14. outrageandsprinkles
    outrageandsprinkles December 11, 2011 at 2:28 pm |

    Possible reasons these companies pulled their ads:

    -That one guy likes football! He likes it so much he sometimes prioritizes it over other things! That promotes terrible family values! (Also terrorism!)

    -Some of them cover their heads! That reminds us of 9/11 and makes us sad!

    -Some of them don’t cover their heads! This is really confusing because how are we supposed to be able to tell who the terrorist are if they don’t all look the same?

    -Because terrorism!

  15. Nahida
    Nahida December 11, 2011 at 3:05 pm |

    Bushfire:
    Wow, that is a lot of major companies!

    Ugh, I know, I totally use Estee Lauder’s lipstick. -_- If I remember correctly and they own MAC that is.

  16. Mike
    Mike December 11, 2011 at 3:16 pm |

    I just created a petition on change.org asking Lowe’s CEO Robert Niblock to reinstate his commercials, and set an example for the rest of the companies listed.

    Please sign and share!

  17. Right-wing Activists Get Companies To Pull Ads From All-American Muslim

    [...] // This morning, as I browsed through my Google Reader, I found this story from Feministe – Ads pulled from All-American Muslim. The piece references this article from Think Progress, which details how a group called the Florida [...]

  18. Non-Believer
    Non-Believer December 11, 2011 at 6:21 pm |

    I have no objection to pulling advertising dollars from a show that promotes an irrational superstition like Islam. So Lowe’s decision is correct in its result, if not its motive. When calling the company, you should object to its sponsorship of any show which portrays the superstitions of Christianity, Judaism, Islam or any faith as acceptable beliefs systems. They are all the enemy of reason.

    There is no middle ground, no room for “tolerance.” In fact, tolerance is irrelevant. Every religion is “intolerant” to the event that it declares that atheism is false; and atheism is intolerant to the extent that it declares religion false. The question is merely one of truth. To call Lowe’s and demand that they sponsor one brand of insidious falsehood because it sponsors others does not solve any problem, it merely aggravates it. It’s like demanding that they sponsor a documentary that promotes the theory that the moon landing was staged because they previously sponsored a documentary about the prophecies of Nostrodamus.

  19. mephistephanies
    mephistephanies December 11, 2011 at 6:58 pm |

    Wow, Green Mountain? I am really surprised by that.

  20. Sabrina
    Sabrina December 11, 2011 at 8:04 pm |

    I’m not surprised Wal-mart pulled out, as they already hate women. I also love that the word “jihad” is now as misused by the media as is the word “retarded” by teenagers. Sad.

  21. feminist
    feminist December 11, 2011 at 8:20 pm |

    With honor killings, battering of women, polygamy and pedophilia accepted as part of their religion, I don’t understand how anyone, let alone feminists can support the acceptance of such behavior and a religion that promotes it.

  22. Kristin A
    Kristin A December 11, 2011 at 8:37 pm |

    I’m kinda worried about those Christians. What if there are splinter cells all over America who enact a crusade?!

  23. Politicalguineapig
    Politicalguineapig December 11, 2011 at 9:43 pm |

    Kristin A: Sadly, there are, and they are. Anyone heard about that town in Montana that’s been taken over by white supremacists? Frankly, that worries me a lot more then Dearborn does.

    But what do I know, my district elected a Muslim congressman, so clearly, we all hate Americans here and want our congressman to withdraw us from the United States of America and impose Sharia law. Or at least, that’s what this group of clowns would think.
    (There’s a bit of a huge flaw there, as most of the evvilll Muslims here are in no condition to mount an attack. They’re too busy shoveling their walks, bundling up their kids, and dusting off their cars, just like the rest of us. Or in a few cases, just finding out that there is such a thing as 0 degrees.)

  24. MozInOz
    MozInOz December 11, 2011 at 10:27 pm |

    Kristin A:
    I’m kinda worried about those Christians. What if there are splinter cells all over America who enact a crusade?!

    You mean like Timothy McVeigh?

    I’d be more worried about having another gimp in the white house. The last one’s “crusade against terrorism” didn’t go very well.

  25. lisa
    lisa December 11, 2011 at 11:06 pm |

    I am.not surprised that Estee Lauder pulled. The owner of Estee Lauder is a very well-known sophisticated neo-con, with political influence and pushed for invasion of Iraq and is now pushing for war with Iran. Estee lauded has been on the boycott and divest movement against Israeli settlements for years now. No Muslim should ever buy Estee Lauder or affiliated products. Their funds directly fund hatred.

    Not surprised by Bank of America or Walmart, either.

  26. lisa
    lisa December 11, 2011 at 11:09 pm |

    My comment is unclear; Estee Lauder is owned by a prominent Zionist family. Estee Lauder has been on the BDS list for many years for supporting settlement in Palestine and funding neocon efforts in the Mideast.

  27. Kyra
    Kyra December 12, 2011 at 12:02 am |

    Great. First they had “reverse racism” and now they’re up in arms over “reversed slander.” Waaaah, they’re portraying them NICELY!

    Sad about Lowe’s—they tend to be the good guys in terms of interacting with sales staff while female without being condescended to and dismissed. *eyes Home Depot balefully*

  28. Clarisse Thorn
    Clarisse Thorn December 12, 2011 at 3:31 am | *

    Aw man, Nahida, don’t tell me that Estee Lauder owns MAC. I would have been happier not knowing that. :sigh: Oh well …

  29. Norma
    Norma December 12, 2011 at 7:44 am |

    How does a customer of BofA go about finding out if this is true?

  30. Norma
    Norma December 12, 2011 at 7:49 am |

    I should clarify– I ask how to verify since according to the linked article in the OP, only Lowe’s has confirmed that they pulled advertising, while another company that the FFA *says* pulled its ads (Amway) said they did not.

  31. Angie unduplicated
    Angie unduplicated December 12, 2011 at 8:08 am |

    If mainstream media produced a show demonstrating that Klan families are just ordinary Americans with a different belief system, I suspect that you all would be calling for an advertisers’ boycott, as with Lou Dobbs and Glenn Beck. I’m a descendant of two Islamic lines, and we have an Islamic leasing an adjacent business property. Like fundamentalist Christians and Orthodox Jews, they are polite, they are decent, and they want to return women to chattel status. The boycotters, please listen, are on our side. They are supporting women’s rights, and I do vote with my dollars to support those who empower women.

  32. Nahida
    Nahida December 12, 2011 at 8:33 am |

    Did Angie seriously just claim that over 1.5 billion people are Klan members?

  33. Li
    Li December 12, 2011 at 8:36 am |

    Angie: Did you notice how each of the two religious groups you referred to were preceded by an adjective? Which is strange, see, because the use of adjectives such as “fundamentalist” and “Orthodox” would suggest that you understand that religions are internally heterogeneous, and yet you appear not to have applied that logic to Islam, a religion practiced by about 1.5 billion people.

  34. Li
    Li December 12, 2011 at 8:42 am |

    Angie unduplicated: we have an Islamic leasing an adjacent business property.

    An Islamic? Does this mean, perhaps, a Muslim?

  35. Odin
    Odin December 12, 2011 at 8:48 am |

    @Angie –May I ask why you’re using “Islamic” as a noun for a person, rather than “Muslim”? My experience is that people with your asserted background (relatives who are Muslim) tend to refer to people who belong to Islam as Muslims, not Islamics. Using “Islamic” as a noun for people tends to be something I associate with xenophobic Americans who also use “Illegal” as a noun for people.

  36. Blitzgal
    Blitzgal December 12, 2011 at 9:28 am |

    Angie, the Klan is not equivalent to the adherents of the second most popular religion on the planet and it is vile that you’ve made that comparison. Secondly, all major religions have issues with women’s rights. This is not singular to Islam. For instance, right here in the United States we’re suffering a major attack on access to reproductive health — not just abortion rights, but contraception itself. There is a group of self-professed Christians in this country who will denounce Islam on one hand, and then turn around and say things like women belong in the home and homosexuals are immoral deviants.

  37. EG
    EG December 12, 2011 at 10:09 am |

    Angie unduplicated: If mainstream media produced a show demonstrating that Klan families are just ordinary Americans with a different belief system, I suspect that you all would be calling for an advertisers’ boycott, as with Lou Dobbs and Glenn Beck.

    And if everyday, run-of-the-mill Muslims in the US got together in order to spout misogynist crap, terrorize women, and agitate for laws returning us to the status of chattel, that would be a fine comparison. Given that everyday, run-of-the-mill American Muslims are significantly less harmful to the cause of women’s rights than right-wing Christians, however, I will save my support for companies that pull their advertising dollars from the Duggars’ reality show, because it’s hard for me to see how depicting a Muslim woman who wants to open a nightclub spreads the kind of poisonous ideology that would concern me.

  38. Sheelzebub
    Sheelzebub December 12, 2011 at 10:14 am |

    Angie unduplicated: Like fundamentalist Christians and Orthodox Jews, they are polite, they are decent, and they want to return women to chattel status. The boycotters, please listen, are on our side. They are supporting women’s rights, and I do vote with my dollars to support those who empower women.

    I await the outrage from these same people over the misogynist dominionists like the Duggars and the misogynist polygynists in Sister Wives.

    Somehow, I have a feeling that those two shows are different.

  39. matlun
    matlun December 12, 2011 at 10:38 am |

    @Angie: Do you not think that in the US fundamentalist Christianity is a bigger issue than fundamentalist Muslims?

    Sheelzebub: I await the outrage from these same people over the misogynist dominionists like the Duggars and the misogynist polygynists in Sister Wives.

    I doubt you will get that outrage from the FFA, but you could get some from me if you want (?)

  40. Christian Group Manufactures Controversy Over a Muslim Reality Show | Con Games

    [...] largest Muslim communities in the United States. A group called the Florida Family Association has attacked the show, calling it "propaganda," that "is attempting to manipulate Americans into ignoring [...]

  41. Tim
    Tim December 12, 2011 at 11:58 am |

    Norma:
    HowdoesacustomerofBofAgoaboutfindingoutifthisistrue?

    One approach to this question would be to just close your accounts there anywa and take them to a local bank or credit union, since BofA has done plenty of awful stuff, even if they didn’t do this. In fact, I would say this is, in some respects, much less awful than things they had done already, even though this is bad enough.

  42. Lowe’s is now considered bigoted and anti-Islamic: Yay for political-correctness run amok! | The Conservative Guild

    [...] only has Lowe’s pulled their ads, but McDonald’s and Walmart have also done so.  Feministe has a more concise list of advertisers who have bowed [...]

  43. Katya
    Katya December 12, 2011 at 2:40 pm |

    The boycotters, please listen, are on our side. They are supporting women’s rights, and I do vote with my dollars to support those who empower women.

    Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. The FFA does not support women’s rights; they are a right-wing, bigoted organization that worries obsessively about kids being exposed to the “gay lifestyle.” They may be on your side, but they are certainly not on mine.

  44. R. Dave
    R. Dave December 12, 2011 at 3:31 pm |

    mephistephanies: Wow, GreenMountain? I am really surprised by that.

    Seconded. I’d really like to get confirmation of whether or not that’s true.

  45. xenu01
    xenu01 December 12, 2011 at 3:46 pm |

    A TLC spokeswoman, Laurie Goldberg, said the network could not comment about the alleged advertising defections, but that the show maintained “strong” advertising. “There are no plans to pull the show. The show is going to continue as planned,” said Goldberg. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/companies-pull-ads-from-muslim-reality-tv-show/2011/12/09/gIQANywmiO_story.html)

    That warms my cold, cold heart a little. You have done some things I don’t agree with, TLC (A Wedding Story, eugh), but this is one I totally stand behind.

  46. Politicalguineapig
    Politicalguineapig December 12, 2011 at 4:00 pm |

    Actually, Lowe’s and Home Depot are bankrolling the Pearls, so I’m not really surprised by this.

  47. AmberDaner
    AmberDaner December 12, 2011 at 4:42 pm |

    I think a clarification is in order. A lot of the companies mentioned didn’t pull their ads because of the pressure, they chose to not renewed their commitment. While I can’t be sure about the exact reason, it probably has to do with the show’s shitty ratings and is a pretty common practice. Lowes seems to be the only company that bowed to the pressure. The group is claiming credit for the other companies to show off the ‘success’ of their campaign.

    I guess it’s too much to ask these religious fundies for honesty.

  48. Rochelle
    Rochelle December 12, 2011 at 4:42 pm |

    Here’s the link to a change.org petition requesting that Lowe’s reinstate the ads.

    http://www.change.org/petitions/lowes-reinstate-commercials-on-all-american-muslim

  49. Mike Crichton
    Mike Crichton December 12, 2011 at 4:57 pm |

    Feminist @ 18: You’ve just described classical Judaism. Minus the polygamy, early Christianity too.

  50. Marksman2010
    Marksman2010 December 12, 2011 at 5:36 pm |

    Like anyone needs yet another excuse to close their account(s) at Bank of America.

  51. Lowe’s Knows | Maitri's VatulBlog
    Lowe’s Knows | Maitri's VatulBlog December 12, 2011 at 5:51 pm |

    [...] And why should Lowe’s hog the media attention? The following companies – Bank of America, the Campbell Soup Co., Dell, Estee Lauder, General Motors, Goodyear, Green Mountain Coffee, McDonalds, Sears, and Wal-Mart – have also pulled advertising support from All-American Muslim. [...]

  52. Seth Eag
    Seth Eag December 12, 2011 at 5:54 pm |

    I think these critics—including the commenters above who mentioned Islam-based women’s rights abuses in support of the advertisers decision—often have a grain, but just a grain, of truth in what they’re saying. I think most sane people would admit that FGM and the glass-ceiling are not moral equals, while still condemning both. Same with, say, state-sponsored executions of homosexuals vs. the lack of state-sponsored unions for homosexuals. Conservatives often ask us not to confuse the two, that is Christian fundamentalism in America and Islamic fundamentalism abroad. I, more or less, agree with this call for nuance.

    But it seems that their interest in nuance always stops at their own group. That there may also be a difference, both in belief and practice, between the average Muslim living in Dearborn and the cleric in Waziristan is somehow not worth their consideration. I can’t say, as an atheist, that religion is religion, but they can say that a Muslim is a Muslim.

  53. MertvayaRuka
    MertvayaRuka December 12, 2011 at 5:55 pm |

    To any of the concern trolls warning us of the looming threat of Islamofascism, I ask you these questions:

    What religion’s adherents have been behind the successful campaigns to eliminate marriage equality in about two dozen US states?

    What religion’s adherents have been steadily chipping away at women’s rights to abortion, contraception, health and sex education in the decades since Roe v. Wade?

    Who perpetrated the terrorist attacks in Oklahoma City and Atlanta, some of the worst attacks this country had seen before 9/11?

    Who was arrested in Tyler, Texas with about half a million rounds of ammunition, automatic weapons, enough sodium cyanide to turn an office building into a multi-story crypt and plans to use all of it against US citizens, but was only sentenced to a little over 11 years for it?

    I’ll give you a little hint, helpful guy that I am: “Muslims” or “Islam” is not the answer. 9/11 was a big hit but it was a lucky shot in the grand scheme of things. Islamic fundamentalists had to kill over 2,000 people to even get noticed in this country and that’s all it managed to do. Policy has not changed in their favor. The US military is hammering at them all over the world instead of backing off. Meanwhile, fundamentalist Christianity in the US is getting just about everything it wants on a silver platter and demanding more. Maybe I’m just silly, but I think the bigger threat is the group that is actually changing policy and making law in the US and not the group that can’t even rent a building without people losing their shit over it.

  54. Donna L
    Donna L December 12, 2011 at 6:25 pm |

    classical Judaism

    Just to clarify, which period is that supposed to refer to? If you mean, say, 600 BCE, I”m not sure how much anyone really knows about how the religion was actually practiced. If you mean the period of the Roman Empire and after, when the Talmud was being codified, what you’re saying doesn’t bear much resemblance to reality (except for polygamy, which, as I recall, wasn’t technically banned among Jews in the Christian world until the 11th century or so, although it continued to a limited extent among Jews in the Muslim world). In any event, that’s all largely beside the point; I agree with you that the worst aspects of any religion (or its sacred texts, regardless of how they’re applied in practice) hardly constitute any kind of justification for vilifying a TV program that portrays people who belong to that religion as human beings.

    PS: I’m reluctant to bring this subject up, but it seems to me that the Lauders are a prominent Jewish family; it’s a bit much for Lisa to characterize them as a “Zionist” family as if that’s all that any of them is about. Even Ronald Lauder, who’s very far from my favorite person in the world because of his Republican politics and his right-oriented political views on Israel, broke with Netanyahu earlier this year over the latter’s insistence on preconditions to negotiations. If he’s pushed for war with Iran, that’s awful if it’s true, and I’d be curious to see where he did so. Then again, I always thought most of his contributions were to art museums and things like the Ronald Lauder Foundation, which supports marginalized Jewish communities in Central and Eastern Europe, and has nothing to do with Israeli politics.

    I’d like to know the company’s reasons for pulling its advertising, which is awful too. But since when does Ronald Lauder have any involvement in running that company? That was a very long time ago. It’s the entire Lauder family that still owns the majority of the company, not simply him. Ronald Lauder isn’t even on the Board of Directors, let alone part of corporate governance. So I’d be amazed if he had anything to do with the decision to pull the advertising (or the decision to run it in the first place, for that matter). The attempt to portray Estee Lauder as “his” company, then, seems misleading. If anyone wants to stop buying Estee Lauder products because of the advertising decision, more power to you, but I’m not sure how much Ronald Lauder, specifically, should enter into it.

    As far as people like his brother Leonard Lauder (who did run the company as its Chief Executive until he retired), and Evelyn Lauder (Leonard’s wife, who died just last month) are concerned, I guess one would need to start boycotting the Whitney Museum and anything to do with the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. Because that’s what they’re known for.

  55. IrishUp
    IrishUp December 12, 2011 at 7:29 pm |

    @ Seth Eag, did you mean to imply FGM is an Islamic religous practice? It reads that way in your post. FGM is a cultural practice, not a religious one, which predates Islamic traditions by many centuries. Which underscores how easily hateful rhetoric can create negative impressions on us of people and lives we don’t know.

    (None of which should be interpreted as any kind of defense of FGM, which is a global health crisis affecting 100+ million women and girls. Incidentally, FGM is not unknown in the West and was done to marginalized women as a cure for hysteria, among other things.)

  56. Seth Eag
    Seth Eag December 12, 2011 at 7:49 pm |

    @IrishUp Apologies, you’re right, I wasn’t clear. Islam doesn’t have anything to say about FGM. I was attempting to compare differences in culture—not necessarily religions—and how most of us would agree that not all cultural differences are equal. Religious texts per se are rarely the problem, as we generally tend, as a society, to decide what doctrines we will follow and what we will ignore based on economics, education, etc.

  57. Nahida
    Nahida December 12, 2011 at 8:06 pm |

    Seth Eag: I was attempting to compare differences in culture—not necessarily religions—

    Excuse me, whose culture? America’s? Because this post is about American Muslims.

  58. Nahida
    Nahida December 12, 2011 at 8:08 pm |

    Seth Eag: I think most sane people would admit that FGM and the glass-ceiling are not moral equals, while still condemning both.

    Shit, I didn’t even have to ask. YOU versus US, right? Got it.

  59. R. Dave
    R. Dave December 12, 2011 at 8:52 pm |

    I think you’re misinterpreting Seth’s comment, Nahida.

  60. zuzu
    zuzu December 12, 2011 at 8:55 pm |

    MertvayaRuka: Maybe I’m just silly, but I think the bigger threat is the group that is actually changing policy and making law in the US and not the group that can’t even rent a building without people losing their shit over it.

    Oh, it’s not even a matter of renting; they *bought* the old Burlington Coat Factory and the whole mishegoss was over their application for approval from the Landmarks Commission for the proposed renovation.

    All the cries of “sacred ground” during that whole business amused the fuck out of me, since the center is right next to a dive bar that serves really great onion rings.

  61. Nahida
    Nahida December 12, 2011 at 8:56 pm |

    LOL Maybe some privileged asshat would care to graciously explain?

    That FGM comparison is no different from “I understand why someone would be concerned about Shari’ah Law seeping into the US because THAT IS WHAT AMERICAN MUSLIMS WANT.”

  62. Nahida
    Nahida December 12, 2011 at 8:57 pm |

    And so we should totally be worried about FGM now.

  63. Nahida
    Nahida December 12, 2011 at 9:02 pm |

    Seth Eag: I think these critics—including the commenters above who mentioned Islam-based women’s rights abuses in support of the advertisers decision—often have a grain, but just a grain, of truth in what they’re saying. I think most sane people would admit that FGM and the glass-ceiling are not moral equals, while still condemning both.

    There is a grain of truth… because FGM?

    What am I misinterpreting?

  64. R. Dave
    R. Dave December 12, 2011 at 9:10 pm |

    Nahida:LOL Maybe some privileged asshat would care to graciously explain?

    Sure; if you’d like. I take Seth’s point to be that (i) although some common Muslim-American values and traditions regarding homosexuality, the role of women, etc. are problematic from a progressive/feminist perspective, that obviously implies no equivalence or connection with the truly abhorent practices of groups like the Taliban and al-Qaeda, and (ii) conservative Christian groups that suggest otherwise are being hypocritical in light of their own frequent calls for “nuance” and against false equivalency whenever comparisons are made between their behavior and that of other religious groups.

    All clear now?

  65. gillianrosh
    gillianrosh December 12, 2011 at 10:46 pm |

    I can’t believe that Sears – which is in danger of going under in the next few years – has the nerve to pull ads from anywhere!

  66. United States of Islamophobia | Greased Cartridge

    [...]                      Ads pulled from All-American Muslim [...]

  67. Angel H.
    Angel H. December 13, 2011 at 8:39 am |

    Anyway, the companies who pulled their ads include Lowe’s, Bank of America, the Campbell Soup Co., Dell, Estee Lauder, General Motors, Goodyear, Green Mountain Coffee, McDonalds, Sears, and Wal-Mart.

    But have all of those companies really pulled their ads? The article says that the FFA “contends that” those companies pulled their ads because of its influence. Lowe’s has the been the only one to come forward and say that it’s true. Amway, apparently one of the 65 companies FFA claimed to have influenced, called bullshit.
    Unfortunately (fortunately?), someone crashed the FFA site so I couldn’t get the full list.

  68. FashionablyEvil
    FashionablyEvil December 13, 2011 at 10:17 am |

    NPR reported that Home Depot and Pernod-Ricard have denied canceling their ads.

    (Sorry, there’s only audio for that report so far–I expect there will be a transcript later today.)

  69. New TLC Show "All-American Muslim" - Page 3

    [...] Estee Lauder, General Motors, Goodyear, Green Mountain Coffee, McDonalds, Sears, and Wal-Mart. Ads pulled from All-American Muslim Lowe's is the only one targeted…. [...]

  70. Norma
    Norma December 14, 2011 at 6:06 am |

    From FashionalyEvil’s link, the best comment ever about the FFA’s little project:

    “This is funny and stupid at the same time.” – Imad Hamad, Michigan director of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee

  71. James
    James December 14, 2011 at 10:03 am |

    Just because a company’s ad appeared on one episode and not the next week doesn’t mean they pulled it. Ad buys are often for X number of ads on a network during a given week. The network spreads the ads out among its shows. And, a company could buy network A one week and network B the next. I’m guessing that most of these companies did not make a decision to advertise on the program and, likewise, did not make a decision to not advertise there.

  72. Dana
    Dana December 14, 2011 at 11:49 am |

    I volunteer at a high school in Dearborn, and the consensus among the (Muslim) kids there is that they hate this show and think the people featured shouldn’t be broadcasting their community for the world to judge. Just saying, objections from the Muslim community itself could be part of the reason advertisers bailed.

  73. charlotte
    charlotte December 14, 2011 at 2:14 pm |

    just to clear up some confusion, it does seem that at least a few of the advertisers named by the FFA have *not* pulled their ads, and are saying so.
    href=”http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/13/controversy-drives-advertisers-from-all-american-muslim-or-does-it/?hp”>

  74. Hershele Ostropoler
    Hershele Ostropoler December 17, 2011 at 2:14 pm |

    Dana, what is the basis of the Muslim community objections? Do they specifically feel it shows them in a bad light, or is it a general keep-your-head-down thing, or unrepresentative, or something else?

  75. American Patriot
    American Patriot January 9, 2012 at 4:03 am |

    Ignorance breeds intolerance, bigotry & misinformation. These negative comments are not the facts, but misinformation of uneducated people which is breeding hatred. It is like a blind man directing a herd of blind horses off a cliff. Some examples for you uneducated people out there that are following your Deaf & blind leaders that think all Muslims are bad & that there groups remarks are what society should follow. 1. All the sexual molestation of kids by Catholic Priest, does that make all Catholics or Priest bad? No, it does not. Timothy McVeigh blew up the Oklahoma Federal Building does that make All whites, Militia members & the Michigan Militia group Bad? No, it does not. Nazi’s committed mass murders & genocide, does that make all Germans & Austrians murders? No, it does not. If a few people from one religious group commit a horrible crime against society, mankind, the 10 Commandments, mans law & go against what their Holy book Preaches against, does that make everyone in that Religious group bad or evil? No it does not! If you believe these idiots that are preaching this form of hatred then you are part of the same group of people that need to leave this great country of ours.

Comments are closed.

The commenting period has expired for this post. If you wish to re-open the discussion, please do so in the latest Open Thread.