Macy's

[NathanATX]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060607/..._s_gay_display

This is Macy's response to my letter:

Macy's has a long-standing and respected history of support for
diversity. Our company philosophy is deeply rooted in diversity and
inclusiveness. As such, we support a variety of causes in the communities that we serve. Our commitment and celebration of Gay Pride has been
traditionally commemorated in our window displays. Our annual support of Gay Pride Week in Boston and in other cities where we operate clearly
demonstrates our commitment to diversity. Macy's commitment to diversity
will continue to be an important part of our company and community
outreach as we celebrate Gay Pride festivities this month and in the future.

Sincerely,

Altrina Johnson
Customer Service Specialist
Macy's

Customer Comments:
First Name: Mr. Nathan
Last Name: Black
Address: 2209 Lawnmont #201
City: Austin
State: TX
Zip: 78756
Country:
Phone:
Email: nateblackpfs@yahoo.com
Division: mce
Location: 710000
Source: Macys.com
Overall: No Rating Given
Store Env: Disappointing
Assoc Behav: No Rating Given

Comments: I am VERY disappointed with your actions regarding your Gay
pride display.

I will take my business elsewhere and will advise my family, friends,
church members, and colleagues to do the same.

Nathan Black

[keltic63]

no explanation for their actions?

it's also interesting that very often, window displays include 2 or 3 mannequins of the same gender to show off the variety of merchandise available. When these 2 male mannequins were displayed in the context of a Pride celebration, it becomes offensive?

Macy's has dropped the ball on this one.

[Poetic Awakening]

Maybe if we complained that having only a heterosexual theme to their mannequin displays was offensive, they'd remove them all together? Or just prove that they really care more about their straight customers' opinions and feelings than their gay customers, or even gay supportive.

[Zerbie]

The point is, Macy's removed those mannequins because of complaints from a fringe group. Mainstream shoppers are not making complaints. At least, based upon some article I read on this a few days ago. . . .

Macy's did not want to offend "some" customers. But sadly, you can't live in this world without offending someone because there are lunatics out there who are going to be offended by ANYthing. This is very similar to what happened with Ford a few months ago.

[keltic63]

Ever since I read this news story, I've been thinking about context, and what we bring to it. When we go out to our local gay bar, we like to play the video games that the "Merit Megatouch" company places in the bar. There are "erotic" games that are soft-core versions of the regular games, and sometimes we play the Photo hunt game where you try to find the differences between 2 pics (one is photoshopped with 5 differences). We click on "Hunks" when given the choice between "Hunks" or "Babes." In the context of a gay bar, we view the pics as being homo-erotic. However, these same pics are available on the games in straight bars. In this case, the pics/games are gay because of the context we bring to it. Straight women could be sitting in a straight bar somewhere, and playing the game looking at the same "Hunks" that we are. In that context (which the straight women bring to the game) the game and pics are straight!

So what about these mannequins? What made the window display "gay?" Was it the fact it was 2 male mannequins? no. stores do that often and no one thinks about it being gay. It was the context! And in this case, Macy's had used text to indicate that the window celebrated gay pride.

[suzer1013]

The article I read said a male mannequin was wearing a rainbow flag draped around his waist in a skirt-like fashion. Double-whammy -- gay flag and a guy wearing a skirt! OMG, civilization as we know it will end!

I think Macy's made the wrong choice on this one, but I also don't really know what the display looked like (other than the above description that I read). I tend to doubt that it would have been offensive to the majority of people.

Susan

[awediot]

Originally Posted by Zerbie

Macy's removed those mannequins because of complaints from a fringe group.

They also put them there in support of a fringe group.

Originally Posted by Zerbie

you can't live in this world without offending someone because there are lunatics out there who are going to be offended by ANYthing.

Originally Posted by Poetic Awakening

Maybe if we complained that having only a heterosexual theme to their mannequin displays was offensive, they'd remove them all together? Or just prove that they really care more about their straight customers' opinions and feelings than their gay customers, or even gay supportive.

Of course they care more about their straight customers DOLLARS more than anyone's feelings... Rarely do I come to defense of the Big Guys, but it seems Macy's can't win. They tried, (you can bet they employ their share of family), they offended, they went with the all mighty dollar like all business does. They were damned if they did, damned if they didn't. I wish that they had the conviction to make that stand, but as a cash based company, their decision to keep a low profile and offend the least (us vs. the xtian right), to gain the most, is still sensible. I am disappointed they crumbled, but glad they bothered to try at all... It is a smaller step than we'd like, but a step none the less.

[Rick336]

Awediot said:

They also put them there in support of a fringe group.

I'm not sure who you're referring to as a fringe group. People who celebrate gay pride, or gay people in general?

As a gay man I never thought of myself as part of a fringe group. Typically fringe groups are people seen as outside the mainstream with extreme ideas like the Klan or NAMBLA.

Even though I don't agree with much of the wild sexual displays in many gay pride festivals, I'm not sure I consider gay pride in general as fringe.

Just my two cents.

Rick

[awediot]

I use fringe to mean the decorative strings attatched usually to the edge of a piece of main-stream cloth...

...or, just not the main-stream, minority, and if you pull from that the segment of that group that parades its pride around in the streets (not criticizing that), then I think fringe applies. Macy's knew the display was mostly geared for a select audience

[NathanATX]

Originally Posted by awediot

Of course they care more about their straight customers DOLLARS more than anyone's feelings... Rarely do I come to defense of the Big Guys, but it seems Macy's can't win. They tried, (you can bet they employ their share of family), they offended, they went with the all mighty dollar like all business does. They were damned if they did, damned if they didn't. I wish that they had the conviction to make that stand, but as a cash based company, their decision to keep a low profile and offend the least (us vs. the xtian right), to gain the most, is still sensible. I am disappointed they crumbled, but glad they bothered to try at all... It is a smaller step than we'd like, but a step none the less.

So do you think we should be silent?

It's great they had a pride display, yes. It really sucks they were bullied into all but eliminating it.

I do think they need to hear from us. They need to apologize or we need to shop elsewhere.

[awediot]

I can applaud your stand and believe they will take it to heart. I also believe what they stated in their response to you as far as their efforts to support the community as far as the cold lust of stockholders allows. They could have redressed the mannequin (a rainbow flag skirt is a little tacky, but I've seen no pics) to tone it down and found a little middler of ground, and I think their response was too aquiescent... Apologize? -It would be under duress and a meaningless gesture to get my money back at this point anyway. I don't care either way. Hear from us? -most definitely, thanks for speaking your mind. A boycott? -maybe... never seems to do much... How about get in touch with the window dressers union (in the Pink Pages no doubt) and have them do some real hideous things in retaliation for awhile... ?

[Zerbie]

As I said, this is much like the Ford incident from a few months ago.

I used "fringe group" in the context of 'extreme ideas,' as Rick says. But Awe is also correct insofar as numbers go.

The problem with business in this position is that the business (Macy, Ford, whatever) winds up jammed between the gay rights advocates on one side and the extreme anti-gays on the other. And if we use "fringe" to refer to a group that is small in *number,* then you can say the business is caught between the mutually exclusive demands of 2 "fringe" (or for the rest of us, minority) groups, each demanding that Macy (Ford) take a *stand.*

The point needs to be made to Macy/Ford that in an un-winnable situation such as this, they need to consider that the vastly overwhelming majority of their consumers don't care about the Gay Pride window display one way or another. But they cannot keep everyone with conflicting social ideologies happy at the same time. To some extent, we lose this one a bit, but I agree the mere fact that there *was* a gay pride window display at Macy's is evidence that we are "losing forward." It's a shame they buckled, and I've toyed with the idea of writing to say stop buckling to anti-gay extremists, because it's not cool. But I think I'd be wasting energy that I could put to other uses.

[NathanATX]

http://www.waynebesen.com/2006/06/ma...-gone-mad.html

pic of the display

[Daniel]

Nate, thanks for the link.

I think Susan makes a point worth noting: it's the 'man-in-a-dress' aspect that got our little 'fringe' group in Boston all riled. After all, the window display is still there, sans the rainbow dress. Hasn't this' fringe' ever seen South Pacific or Brigadoon? Or are they simply satorially challenged? But wait a minute....who lives in Boston? Let me think. Conservative Irish Catholics perhaps? Methinks they aren't such a fringe group there. Hello! Their cousins here in Manhattan have been adamantly opposed to any rainbow-sash-kilt-wearing fellows in their parade for as long as I can remember. This rather large group is probably the irate customer Macy's doesn't want to offend.

Not them? I'll retract my reading between the lines when Macy's tells us who got the bee in their bonnet.

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by Daniel

I think Susan makes a point worth noting: it's the 'man-in-a-dress' aspect that got our little 'fringe' group in Boston all riled.

Ok. It's a bit strange to quote one's self, but after reading recent news of the Macy's window matter, I thought it interesting that my point, while speculative, has proved to be the issue in question. God forbid that male mannequins should have pecs to die for! And dresses! Mon dieu! Zees is zee last straw.

http://www.nyblade.com/2006/6-19/news/national/aa.cfm
After receiving phone calls and e-mail complaints, Macy’s surrendered to the request of conservative group MassResistance and removed two mannequins from the display, along with web site addresses to Boston Pride and the AIDS Action Committee of Massachusetts.

MassResistance said the display, which featured two male mannequins—one wearing a Pride flag around his waist —standing next to a calendar, encouraged transgender behavior. They referred to the flag as a skirt, and claimed the “gay” mannequins had women’s breasts.

Members of the conservative group also said the web sites promote gay groups that advocate risky sexual behavior.

Google MassResistance and you'll find some interesting stuff. The organization originated, from what I can gather, in order to stop civil marriage in Mass. The is also a blog that keeps tabs on them.

http://www.massresistance.blogspot.com/
http://www.massresistance.com/

http://massresistancewatch.blogspot.com/

[Britt.]

I think it was yesterday that I read somewhere (If I remembered where, I'd link it) that they apologized, after the fact, when putting the display back would have been pointless, while at the same time defending the decision to remove the display.

Too little, too late.

[Liberal Crozier]

As you know, my current employer sent me to the USA to work. We still own a home in the Cabbagetown section in Toronto ( yes, one of those great Victorian brownstones) and last year went to a same-sex wedding of two of our friends.

Of Scottish ancestry, they married in appropriate kilt. It was a civil ceremony conducted by a justice of the peace. They had long believed that there should be a dichotomy between the spiritual and secular commitment. They had committed in their parish church - the United Church of Canada - the largest Protestant denomination in Canada - and wholly gay-affirming in polity. And yes, since I am also of Scottish ancestry, I also wore my kilt. And before you ask, I am a traditional Scottish-ancestored Canadian and wear my kilt without kit.

The international conglomerates like the one that owns many "old and revered" products like Macy Stores make decisions with the bottom line - and that came with employees being viewed as commodities and not assets.
DP benefits are often determined by statistically examining the benefits of hiring the right employees. In a gay-reinforced environment like fashion and upscale retail, it is wise to hire many gay and lesbian folk. Why then, are they susceptible to groups like FOF or Don Wildmon's group.

MA is your "GROUND ZERO" and it surprises me that all efforts are not centred in protecting the only (state limited) legal marriage rights --for the sixth and seventh time being attacked to reverse the reality while working for a national prohibition.

Nathan - we may be living in the USA at the moment, but there is a time certain when we will return to Canada and live our lives as we really are - a legally-constituted family with no different rights and privileges and yes, responsibilities than any other family.

PS - Yes, I saw a photo and noticed that their objection centred around cut pectoral mannequin with buff look that suggested "female breasts". Their Patriarchalism and Heterosexism informs their protests. These opponents are so angry that the "stereotype" of gay men is more macho masculine.

Please note : the MA opponents are nationwide and big guns and money from outside MA have poured in. No doubt, they understand, apparently more than many "LGBT lobby groups", that there should be a laser focus on this state and their many threads - including the one that you, Nathan, engaged - despite your packaged reply written by both HR, Legal and Marketing.

Bravo for your stand from the Macy and other Federated outlets in TX. I am so glad that there are more than just Steers in TX.

[NathanATX]

Originally Posted by Liberal Crozier

As you know, my current employer sent me to the USA to work. We still own a home in the Cabbagetown section in Toronto ( yes, one of those great Victorian brownstones) and last year went to a same-sex wedding of two of our friends.

Of Scottish ancestry, they married in appropriate kilt. It was a civil ceremony conducted by a justice of the peace. They had long believed that there should be a dichotomy between the spiritual and secular commitment. They had committed in their parish church - the United Church of Canada - the largest Protestant denomination in Canada - and wholly gay-affirming in polity. And yes, since I am also of Scottish ancestry, I also wore my kilt. And before you ask, I am a traditional Scottish-ancestored Canadian and wear my kilt without kit.

The international conglomerates like the one that owns many "old and revered" products like Macy Stores make decisions with the bottom line - and that came with employees being viewed as commodities and not assets.
DP benefits are often determined by statistically examining the benefits of hiring the right employees. In a gay-reinforced environment like fashion and upscale retail, it is wise to hire many gay and lesbian folk. Why then, are they susceptible to groups like FOF or Don Wildmon's group.

MA is your "GROUND ZERO" and it surprises me that all efforts are not centred in protecting the only (state limited) legal marriage rights --for the sixth and seventh time being attacked to reverse the reality while working for a national prohibition.

Nathan - we may be living in the USA at the moment, but there is a time certain when we will return to Canada and live our lives as we really are - a legally-constituted family with no different rights and privileges and yes, responsibilities than any other family.

PS - Yes, I saw a photo and noticed that their objection centred around cut pectoral mannequin with buff look that suggested "female breasts". Their Patriarchalism and Heterosexism informs their protests. These opponents are so angry that the "stereotype" of gay men is more macho masculine.

Please note : the MA opponents are nationwide and big guns and money from outside MA have poured in. No doubt, they understand, apparently more than many "LGBT lobby groups", that there should be a laser focus on this state and their many threads - including the one that you, Nathan, engaged - despite your packaged reply written by both HR, Legal and Marketing.

Bravo for your stand from the Macy and other Federated outlets in TX. I am so glad that there are more than just Steers in TX.

lol...

I love you, Crozier!