A feel-good strategy gone wrong
– how “corporate responsibility” distorts the truth and harms the real victims
The idea of some kind of social responsibility for big business is not only fashionable, but profitable these days. Pick any corporate website, and you’ll see a link somewhere to either a foundation the company itself has, or a list of causes they’re involved with, or both. Because there’s a wide range of issues, and an equally wide range of companies, if you really wanted to boycott every company whose issues you disagree with, you’d probably end up not being able to buy anything.
Most activists recognize there hasn’t been a truly effective boycott of a company or product on a national scale since the table grape boycott of the 1970s, (and even that’s still open for discussion) but there’s always somebody online willing to suggest one.
There are also well-organized groups going after corporations in all kinds of ways for all kinds of reasons.
So it should come as no surprise to anyone that in boardrooms all over the country there’s a sentiment that they should appear to be socially responsible, and in some cases I’m sure that sentiment may even be genuine. It’s not always just a PR gambit.
Sometimes, though, even a well-intentioned desire to get on the bandwagon to support an issue can go, as the British say, “hopelessly pear-shaped.” That’s what’s happening right now with an effort called the Corporate Alliance to End Partner Violence.
Some of the corporations involved are well-known as being motivated by radical feminist values.
Lifetime TV, for example, has historically been a motivator and enabler of hysteria related to the issue of domestic violence.
The Mary Kay Foundation recently financed a production for PBS promoting the presumption that men who seek custody of their children after divorce are all abusers, which eventually led to criticism of the Foundation’s motives from PBS as well as the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
Liz Claiborne, Inc. has produced volumes of scientifically-meaningless advocacy research and blame-and-shame “awareness” campaigns.
They probably recognized what they were buying into, and perhaps were even instrumental in establishing this questionable group.
Other corporations, however, seem more honestly motivated, and may have a level of actual concern for their employee’s well-being.
The website features pages and pages of the usual battered statistics, cherry-picked for effect, and well-worn lists defining domestic violence in feminist terms. I have to give them credit for allowing a little gender neutral language, and linking to some bona fide information. It’s clear there is an effort made to seek a modicum of truth. Yet between the informational content and the action there is a huge gap they don’t seem to recognize.
Their employees will not be able to access help the way they seem to think they can. They are directing these people mostly to services that, as part of their policies, discriminate against employed women, and all men whether employed or not.
The cost to the various companies for belonging to this organization is negligible. For as little as $500 a company can join and begin to take advantage of CAEPV’s “extensive research, policy knowledge and issue expertise.” If you look at the names of the members of the Board of Directors and Advisory board, you find that both are stacked with people who are either employees of some of the feminist-oriented companies mentioned above, or who have a vested interest in keeping domestic violence services firmly rooted in the mores and biases of the past. In addition, CAEPV has conducted some of its own advocacy research to validate its existence.
Since the org was established in 1995, it seems likely this was conceived as either an offshoot of the campaign to promote the 1994 Violence Against Women Act, or was one of the many initiatives on the issue launched in response to the OJ Simpson trial. However, domestic violence was then, and remains today, a highly sensitive issue, and not one willingly addressed by very many people or companies. Companies wishing to appear responsive to the concerns of women, as both employees and consumers, may choose to accept the opinions of apparent experts, at little cost to the companies in terms of either time or money.
An issue such as this one, which is extremely complex and defies definition and solutions, is wide open for opportunists who claim to have found both. It’s only human nature to want to believe those who appear to be “doing something,” and not to look too far into their motives and methods. When the problem is in reality, something that is both quite different and not as pervasive in the way the public has been led to believe, the illusion created by those claiming expertise is easily maintained, and for a long time – in this case eleven years.
It’s entirely possible that those few employees of the corporations who may have attempted to access the help recommended have simply flown under the radar, and no one at the corporate level is even aware of what happened. Abuse victims are not known for their openness. Some women, desperate for a solution to their problem, may have complied with program requirements and quit their jobs, using another explanation. Those who have chosen not to access these programs because of their rigid requirements will have dealt with it in another way.
The veil of secrecy maintained by domestic violence services at all levels ensures that participating companies will never know whether this initiative is helping anyone or not.
The only way that corporations with a genuine desire to provide help for their employees while working with this organization would be to place their own people on the board of directors of CAEPV and change the way they approach the issue. That way however, would require serious effort on the part of these corporations, and if that’s what they were trying to avoid, then they’ve made a big mistake.
By joining CAEPV, what the companies have done is made a clear, politically-charged statement:
“We at _________ Inc. believe men are innately abusive and violent, and women are inherently weak and irresolute. We feel strongly that divorce for victims and criminal prosecution for abusers is the single acceptable approach to the problem of domestic abuse in all its many forms and degrees of severity. We are proud to support radical feminist ideology, and encourage government control of the most intimate aspects of the lives of everyone.”
If that is not the statement they care to make, and the way they want to be perceived by the public, then maybe it’s time they reconsider this partnership.
A complete listing of members can be found here