Here's some links to the mags in question:
Ignored One.
Christians force Wal-mart to ban British 'lad mags'
by ignored_one 31 Replies latest social current
-
-
Reborn2002
Wal-Mart is the largest example of corporate hypocrisy that I know of.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030506/media_nm/media_magazines_walmart_dc_2
They remove Maxim and other "racy men's magazines", yet keep Cosmopolitan and other women's magazines which just as frequently show scantily clad women on the cover and within the articles.
Or if you decided to discuss morals, Wal-Mart feels a Christian obligation to America not to sell music with explicit lyrics, but you can certainly purchase firearms with which to kill someone or blow your own brains out.
Yet another example of why I despise it when corporations and individuals within government attempt to impose their religious beliefs on others. Granted they may have the right to sell whatever products they wish at their store, but to give "Christian morals" as a rationale for it is insulting to those who do not believe in their deity.
-
teenyuck
Well, at least I know where to get free condoms:
From the Maxim site. Pretty helpful for those poor christians who shop at Wal-Mart.
-
ignored_one
I've not read Stuff in a while. It used to be more a boys toys and gadgets mag.
But hey, it they've got lots of lovely ladies showing off their gadgets I'm not complaining.
Ignored One.
-
Jayson
Network or die is a motto I live by.
If you want the mags there is a thing called the "mail." Even the boondocks of the US they still get it. If it hurts Wallyworld to sell it don't, if it helps your sales do. That is freedom people its not your store and they don't have to care about you or what you want. And you don't have to shop there. If you want the product and they don't want to carry it they loose the sale. Their loss. You could even try to open your own store and sell what you think that people want to buy. I guess there are not enough masterbaters to overwhelm the anti pleasure religious ilk.
And I hate Wallyworld!
-
RAYZORBLADE
Wal-Mart tried to impose it's stuff up here in Canada.
How?
Some of their outlets have pharmacies. They would not allow the federally approved "Morning After" pill at their stores to be made available for a customer if they needed it.
There was a huge outcry up here, and they were told by the feds: have it available, period.
Honestly, the absurdity of these things, is beyond me.
You can buy at it all Wal-Mart?
Buy it at their COMPETITOR'S store.
I do NOT shop at Wal-Mart, period. Gimme Zellers anyday.
-
NeonMadman
gitasatsangha:
Publically traded companies have a responsibility towards free society.
Which is what? To sell whatever magazines a distributor happens to want to ship to its stores? Sure, public companies need to operate with regard for the public good, but I hardly see how refusing to carry a few magazines that it finds objectionable constitutes violating the public good. It's not like they are preventing the magazines from being circulated at all.
If the shareholders don't like what the management is doing, they have the right to change it, even replacing the management, if that's what it takes. And the customers are free to shop elsewhere.
WalMart has long had a Christian agenda. It's very obvious.
So what? All that tells me is that the people in control at Wal-Mart are Christians - as are still most Americans - who have a right to run their business as they see fit, like everyone else. Also, see my following comment to Reborn2002...
Reborn2002:
Yet another example of why I despise it when corporations and individuals within government attempt to impose their religious beliefs on others.
So I'm sure you'll join me in condemning the Disney Corporation for the way it has foisted its pro-pagan, anti-Christian beliefs on its moviegoing public, including millions of children, in movies like Pocohontas and The Lion King. And let's not forget how Lucasfilms promotes Buddhist philosophy through the Star Wars series. You despise that, too, right?
Or do you only despise it when Christians attempt to impose their religious beliefs on others? Which, I hasten to point out, Wal-Mart hasn't done - they aren't preventing anyone from getting the magazines in question, they just aren't willing to be the conduit through which the magazines are distributed.
RAYZORBLADE:
They would not allow the federally approved "Morning After" pill at their stores to be made available for a customer if they needed it. There was a huge outcry up here, and they were told by the feds: have it available, period.
Well, I'm glad I don't live up there then. It's pretty scary when government can tell a business that they must carry a certain product that the owners of the business do not wish to sell. Does Wal-Mart have a monopoly on the pharmacy business in Canada? If not, then there were undoubtedly other outlets where people could get the pill if they wanted it. Under what sort of twisted logic do people decide that, not only do they have a right to buy the pill if they want it, but they also have a right to buy it at Wal-Mart, whether or not Wal-Mart wishes to sell it to them?
I do NOT shop at Wal-Mart, period.
Now you're talking! If you really disapprove of the Christian orientation of Wal-Mart's management, and you really dislike what they do, well then, don't shop there! Now, if it's just you, they probably won't miss your business that much. but if they lose a lot of business because of these practices, they will be forced by pure economics to sit up and take notice. They might choose, on principle, to eat the losses and keep their moral integrity. If so, that's their decision, and if it puts them out of business, at least they'll be able to sleep at night. But if the majority of their customers don't find Christianity offensive, and many even find it commendable, they will thrive with or without your individual dollars. Nonetheless, you have to sleep at night, too. So spend your dollars somewhere where you'll feel good about it. -
Stephanus
Publically traded companies have a responsibility towards free society.
Nope. They are responsible to their shareholders. Period. I have to agree; if Walmart doesn't want to stock certain mags, they don't have to. Or should they be forced to carry sex toys as well? As others have pointed out, the market is diverse enough that Walmart's loss is another shop's gain. It's not like the Govt. has banned importation of these mags!
-
RAYZORBLADE
NeonMadman: Wal-Mart wanted to open operations in Canada. They did, and by doing so had to abide by the laws up here. So, they did and in some areas, they were received with open arms.
As you know, when you wish to operate a business in another country - what works at home doesn't always work the same way elsewhere. I know you know this. (not to come across patronizing - can't find the proper emoticon)
Pharmacies and any drug dispensing outlet falls under federal jurisdiction here in Canada.
Wal-Mart wanted to operate pharmacies in their premises. Seemed like a good idea to me.
When particular customers approached Wal-Mart (with a perscription) for the Morning After Pill, they were told they did not have it and would not carry it.
By law, they had to. It's not twisted logic, that's how things are done up here.
A challenge was made by the citizens through the courts, and they won, hands down.
I'm glad the christain right / Wal-Mart doesn't have a monopoly on our pharmacies or our health care system. I think they should continue to stick to merchandise, which I'm sure they'll do.
If Wal-Mart doesn't want to be in the business of dispensing a particular type of medication (legal in Canada): perhaps they should not be in the business of operating pharmacies within their establishments in Canada.
As per my comment "I do not shop at Wal-Mart, period" - yours "don't shop there" ... um, er...ok...if I don't shop there, then how can I stop if I haven't started? (I'm being a bit of rib poker here Neon) - no punches...uh-uh, that wouldn't be nice.
As for the comment about Christianity and Wal-Mart - I didn't mention it in my original post. (re-reading it...um, nope)
If you really disapprove of the Christian orientation of Wal-Mart's management, and you really dislike what they do, well then, don't shop there
But yes, I am well aware of the connection Neon.
But since this problem was solved up here (re: Morning After Pill), it's no longer a concern. It was something I mentioned in reference to a Wal-Mart story that happened here and since we're talking about Wal-Mart, how could I resist.
As for the magazines.....I'm not surprised with Wal-Mart's stand.
It should be interesting to see what happens as a result of this decision. Guess we'll have to wait and see.
-
NeonMadman
By law, they had to. It's not twisted logic, that's how things are done up here. A challenge was made by the citizens through the courts, and they won, hands down.
Maybe I'm a bit too Americanized, then. But I still believe in the free enterprise principle, under which owners of businesses can operate their businesses as they see fit (without violating the public good, of course). I'm sure there are lots of different pharmacies in Canada. Why force one particular chain to carry a product it doesn't want to carry, when the product is easily obtainable elsewhere? As Stephanus said, what if Wal-Mart's customers wanted to buy their sex toys there? Would they be able to institute a suit to force Wal-Mart to carry them? I'm not denying that the Canadian system is as you describe it, I just don't think it's a very good system, at least in that aspect. I suppose that, in Islamic countries, people selling the "morning-after" pills would be executed, but I don't think that's a very good system, either.
I'm glad the christain right / Wal-Mart doesn't have a monopoly on our pharmacies or our health care system.
They don't have a monopoly either here or there, and that's the whole point. All of these products that Wal-Mart doesn't want to carry are readily available through other outlets. They aren't preventing anyone from having anything they want. Sure, people have a right to read whatever magazines they want, but a business person also has the right not to sell whatever he finds offensive. If it were a corner newsstand refusing to sell these magazines, nobody would say a word, but because it's a big corporation, people think they have the right to force it to their will. Wal-Mart is not the government, and it is not a publicly owned entity. Its only responsibility is to its stockholders, and if they're happy, it's really no one else's business.
If Wal-Mart doesn't want to be in the business of dispensing a particular type of medication (legal in Canada): perhaps they should not be in the business of operating pharmacies within their establishments in Canada.
Had I been a Wal-Mart executive, that option would have been seriously considered, and Canadian communities would have suffered the resulting loss of jobs and tax base. Apparently the Wal-Mart people are more willing to compromise than I would have been.
As per my comment "I do not shop at Wal-Mart, period" - yours "don't shop there" ... um, er...ok...if I don't shop there, then how can I stop if I haven't started?
That was my whole point - that you're doing the right thing, given the way you feel about the issue. Until the sign over the door says "Rayzorblade's Wal-Mart," you don't get to tell them how to run their business, and neither should the government. If you don't like what they do, stay away, and vote for someone else with your dollars.