@BabyJane: Yeah, I drafted the screenplay. It involved Daniel Day-Lewis trying to get an Oil and Gas Lease for the minerals under his nursing home. Strangely it was rejected.
"Do you like irishsticks?"
"Yeah, I like irishsticks."
"Do you like to put irishsticks in your mouth?"
"Yeah, I suppose do."
"What are you, a gael fish?"
I must say I'm a little disappointed with the responses here. Whatever your views on the Israeli/Palestinian issue, according to international law none of this is "open to interpretation." Mitzpe Shalem is an illegal settlement. It doesn't matter whether it's a kibbutz or non-religious, it was built in the Occupied Territories in 1977, and the Geneva Conventions expressly prohibit a country from settling any territory it took over during a war. Same with taking minerals, mud, etc from the Dead Sea - also against the Geneva Convention to exploit the natural resources of an occupied territory. And, to add insult to injury, there are no Palestinians employed and all profits go to Israelis. I, for one, will never buy any Ahava products - there are other things that "smell good" or make my skin soft that do not perpetuate the occupation of the Palestine. If you're interested, there's a website called "Who Profits" (www.whoprofits.org) run by an Israeli group, that lists Israeli and international companies profiting from the occupation. Motorola is a specifically bad example.
And if you think boycotts are useless, you should ask South Africans.
Hey, they are in front of my pharmacy. They better be nice to all the great employees there who take great care of me and make sure I don't die of drug interactions.
@CherriSpryte: Yes. And somehow, seeing their window posted on Jezebel reminds me that I promised I would bring them wedding pictures....it really is like a neighborhood pharmacy.
To explain a bit: the demonstration was part of CODEPINK’s new campaign, Stolen Beauty, a boycott of the Israeli cosmetics company Ahava, which illegally harvests the minerals for its products from the Dead Sea of the Occupied Territory of the Palestinian West Bank. It’s the fifth of four similar demonstrations of the past few months, in Las Vegas, NYC’s Central Park, Santa Monica and Tel Aviv (check out photos and news reports at the campaign site, www.stolenbeauty.org). The campaign is a part of the Global Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement to create economic pressure on Israel (and the U.S.) to end its occupation and apartheid of Palestine. Our goal to inspire people to boycott the company, draw attention to Israel’s illegal occupation demand its end.
The purpose of wearing bikinis is two-fold: one, to play on the fact that Ahava harvests minerals from the Dead Sea, a super popular beach destination, and women use the products on their skin all over their bodies; two, to symbolize the fact that our exposure, and uncovering, represents what we’re trying to do to Ahava — to expose and uncover the dirty truth of their illegal practices.
So I am now ordering a product that I would have never heard of if it weren't for their protest against it. Great reviews are great reviews, I thank them for letting me know.
I love Ahava products. And if they're made in the Palestinian territory, then one can assume they employ Palestinians, which can only be a good thing given how abysmal the unemployment is on the West Bank.
@BeckySharper: It's an Israeli company employing Israelis in an "illegal" West Bank settlement. Whether or not it's actually illegal or whether Palestinian resources are actually being stolen is, of course, up for interpretation.
@MilointheMeadow: i don't know if it's really snark so much as a sort of sadness that they may feel they have to wear very little in order to get attention for their cause.
I dunno. I guess because I resent the idea that women need to use their tits to get shit done. I don't see male activists out in athletic cups protesting de-forestation.
@lizochka: Yeah, but that's still their choice, right? So we think it's sad when women wear bikinis to bring attention(/distract from) their cause - but it's not sad when women choose to be strippers/sex workers/models? All mentioned get half-naked, but I guess the difference is the girls above are trying to earn money for a cause, and the rest are earning money for themselves? What's the difference?
And I say this, really, because I've been getting the feeling that my idea of feminism is completely wrong. So from now on, I'm trying to support the choices that all women make, whether I agree with it or not. I'm worried people will jump on me, but I'm really just trying to clarify what's okay and what's not.
@MilointheMeadow: i guess the difference to me is that semi-nudity is the point of stripping/sex work etc. but is not the point these women are trying to make.
but i do see where you're coming from, and for what it's worth, if you believe in equality between the genders, i don't think your idea of feminism *can* be wrong.
@MilointheMeadow: But to say 'I support the choices that all women make, whether I agree with it or not' is a non-position. What do mean by support? If you mean 'I support their freedom to do it', fine, but that's a free speech protection anyway. If a woman says or does something politically that I disagree with, I am going to speak out about it.
@DexterHaven: I mean support it here, on this website. Because I know better than to say anything negative about any woman's choices here.
For example, I am conflicted about some women's choices to capitalize on their appearance for the sake of money/cause. I am also conflicted about women choosing to be stay-at-home mothers who depend on their partners for income. But, I'm learning that just because these are not choices I would make, that doesn't necessarily make them anti-feminist choices.
So would you say the women shown are making a political decision to wear bikinis? Because when it comes to political opinions, then I think anyone is fair game.
@MilointheMeadow:Women's choices get criticised all the time here - look at Sarah Palin. The important thing is, I think, to realise the social and political underpinnings and consequences of our actions. We don't act in a vacuum - so I understand why these women are stripping to make a point, because women's bodies are fetishized in the media, it grabs attention, and it ties in with their cause. But do I feel conflicted about the sexualising of political protest, which has now been normalised by PETA, and the way women's bodies operate as media currency, and how this protest fits into that kind of representation? hell yes.
@DexterHaven: As far as women's political opinions go (Sarah Palin), I would say that has little to do with the person's gender in the first place. But I agree with you, I don't like the sexualization of political protest either.
But then shouldn't I also be uncomfortable about women who decide to be porn stars? When women choose to use their sexuality towards an end - as in the above picture and as in porn, stripping, etc. - is there really that big of a difference? Or should it be considered more insidious to use your sexuality towards the purpose of social change rather than your own financial gain?
@MilointheMeadow: Ha, well these are some of the questions feminism has been grapplling with for decades, so I don't think we can resolve them tonight! I choose not to criticise women who make a living in the sex industry, but I do acknowledge and criticise the exploitative nature of that industry, and the difficulty for women to make a truly 'free' choice in relation to their economic participation in it. Is that sitting on the fence or just old-fashioned Marxism? Who knows!?
Meanwhile, the Kristin Davis-doppelganger on door is giving you the bedroom eyes and saying, "You know you want this stuff anyway ladies. NO? Well, what if I claim it gets rid of cellulite? What then, huh?"
This is stupid. There are many illegal settlements they can protest. Mitzpe Shalem is not one of them. The Dead Sea is not a stolen Palestinian resource. Even the Green Line permits access to both sides. Of course, the Israelies have been more able to capitalize on their access for a variety of reasons. Ugh, people like this really annoy me when there are so many real issues to talk about.
It's interesting how public opinion is shifting. Several years ago my mom and I were talking on the phone about what a tangled mess it all was, and half-jokingly told any NSA agents listening in that we were Texan, and hoped that explained our attitude toward occupation.
12/02/09
12/02/09
12/02/09
12/02/09
12/02/09
12/02/09
12/02/09
"Yeah, I like irishsticks."
"Do you like to put irishsticks in your mouth?"
"Yeah, I suppose do."
"What are you, a gael fish?"
12/02/09
12/02/09
07/30/09
And if you think boycotts are useless, you should ask South Africans.
07/30/09
07/30/09
07/30/09
07/30/09
07/30/09
The purpose of wearing bikinis is two-fold: one, to play on the fact that Ahava harvests minerals from the Dead Sea, a super popular beach destination, and women use the products on their skin all over their bodies; two, to symbolize the fact that our exposure, and uncovering, represents what we’re trying to do to Ahava — to expose and uncover the dirty truth of their illegal practices.
07/30/09
07/30/09
07/30/09
07/30/09
07/30/09
07/30/09
http://www.alternet.org/action/141483/
07/30/09
07/30/09
07/30/09
07/30/09
I dunno. I guess because I resent the idea that women need to use their tits to get shit done. I don't see male activists out in athletic cups protesting de-forestation.
07/30/09
And I say this, really, because I've been getting the feeling that my idea of feminism is completely wrong. So from now on, I'm trying to support the choices that all women make, whether I agree with it or not. I'm worried people will jump on me, but I'm really just trying to clarify what's okay and what's not.
07/30/09
07/30/09
but i do see where you're coming from, and for what it's worth, if you believe in equality between the genders, i don't think your idea of feminism *can* be wrong.
07/30/09
07/30/09
07/30/09
For example, I am conflicted about some women's choices to capitalize on their appearance for the sake of money/cause. I am also conflicted about women choosing to be stay-at-home mothers who depend on their partners for income. But, I'm learning that just because these are not choices I would make, that doesn't necessarily make them anti-feminist choices.
So would you say the women shown are making a political decision to wear bikinis? Because when it comes to political opinions, then I think anyone is fair game.
07/30/09
07/30/09
But then shouldn't I also be uncomfortable about women who decide to be porn stars? When women choose to use their sexuality towards an end - as in the above picture and as in porn, stripping, etc. - is there really that big of a difference? Or should it be considered more insidious to use your sexuality towards the purpose of social change rather than your own financial gain?
07/30/09
07/30/09
07/30/09
07/30/09
07/30/09
07/30/09
07/30/09
07/30/09
07/30/09