vancourier.com — This kind of story burns me up. Why are some organizations who claim to support women so ass-backwards in their political views that they discriminate. Please Digg this to apply some pressure on these morons!
Feb 8, 2007 View in Crawl 4
Closed AccountFeb 9, 2007
Why should this be a surprise? The majority of women who support the BCS are not sex workers and do not want their "prices" pulled down by the cheaper more efficient variety. It's simple labor protection, and the BCS doesn't want to anger its' source of funding.
thesupaflyFeb 9, 2007
Seriously though, to reject a donation is ridiculous...but understandable. It's all about money. Everything tends to be. Someone or some organization that regularly donates much more than the strippers is unhappy with the strippers donating. Obviously when forced to pick between the two, one would be inclined to take the larger donation.Funny side note...Why hasn't anyone commented on the stripper's picture? How in the world did she get a job stripping? Guess you crazy Canadians have different standards!
jav1231Feb 10, 2007
Agreed. I think they should have taken the money but they certainly have a right not too. They also have the right to feel the way they do about stripping.
portapeteyFeb 10, 2007
The problem here is that, in caving to the other donors, the Breast Cancer Society is caving to the kind of old-fashioned moralistic prudery that is in itself harmful to women's health.An organization that is concerned with women's health should not support the suppression of sexuality. The kinds of donors that make toplessness something shameful, are the same kinds that would make women too shy with their own bodies to do breast self-exams. They'd make a visit to a gynecologist for a Pap smear shameful. They'd try to block the distribution of the human papilloma virus vaccine to young women because they think it promotes sexuality. They'd bar unmarried women from acquiring birth control.Prudery is a barrier to women's sexual health, and therefore a barrier to general health. The Breast Cancer Society should not give in to it.
darkamster07Feb 10, 2007
"Apparently strippers arent women. Who knew?"I didn't... untill it was to late :(
kllewyFeb 10, 2007
I'd like to know who these "major donors" are....I work for one of the big 5 banks in Canada, and am familiar with our charitable giving program. I'm certain that they don't dictate to charities who they can, and can't accept donations from. This could be a case of the charity getting ahead of themselves, and inferring negative opinion from major donors where it doesn't actually exist. If it is really the case that some big contributor told them explicitly that they couldn't accept donations from strippers, then the charity should take the principled stand and respond that money donated with good intentions, is worth 100 times that given with strings attached.
mbthompsonFeb 13, 2007
It's called integrity, obviously something you don't have.