“Alas” readers (with some help from Pandagon readers) responded to anti-feminist attacks on the Family Place by donating $725. (The Family Place helps victims of intimate violence (regardless of sex) with shelter, hotel vouchers, and counseling.)
“Alas” has just made a matching donation of $725, bringing the total to $1450. Yay us!
Paige Flink, the director of The Family Place, emails:
Still contemplating whether to send an acknowledgment letter to Glenn Sacks, two people specifically said they were doing it in his honor, one thanked him for helping them find another good non profit, and another person said something not so kind about him, which I won’t repeat.
Thanks to everyone who contributed!
Paige Flink, the director of The Family Place, emails:
“Still contemplating whether to send an acknowledgment letter to Glenn Sacks, two people specifically said they were doing it in his honor, one thanked him for helping them find another good non profit, and another person said something not so kind about him, which I won’t repeat.”
Paige–Yes, I think an acknowledgment or “Thank You” letter to me would be appropriate. My email address is glenn@glennsacks.com.
I’m tempted to make a donation myself, for two reasons:
1) I assume the vast majority of the money would go to help Domestic Violence victims, as opposed to asinine advertisements.
2) It would be great to force Barry to cough up even more money in matching funds.–GS
2) It would be great to force Barry to cough up even more money in matching funds.–GS
I’m sure Barry would be thrilled, on behalf of Alas. As would I.
Thank you.
Even better, Glenn, why not challenge your readers to see if they can beat the $1450 “Alas” readers and “Alas” donated to The Family Place?
How totally at odds with your campaign to reduce donations to The Family Place. Or did you not realize earlier that the vast majority of money donated to The Family Place goes to help Domestic Violence victims as opposed to advertisements (asinine or otherwise)?
How totally at odds with your campaign to reduce donations to The Family Place. Or did you not realize earlier that the vast majority of money donated to The Family Place goes to help Domestic Violence victims as opposed to advertisements (asinine or otherwise)?
I thought Glenn’s point was to point out the fact that ads in question cast an unfair light on males.
Interesting definition of “fact” you have there.
Also, there’s been quite a bit of discussion here about the effects on The Family Place, both intended and otherwise. Perhaps you should read the other posts linked by this one.
Which he tried to achieve via a campaign to reduce donations to TFP. You know, where he had his handpicked readers call TFP donors. And to demonstrate that this is what he did, let me quote Glenn.
It comes across as a bit creepy to me to say this and then, when informed of the amount raised by his critics, say what he did in this thread.
Ampersand I am happy that everyone was able to raise this much money. I will not comment on GS post however ;-) Thank you to all who brought this to light.
Mandolin:
True on my use of the word fact. Removing that word would be proper in this situation.
Jake Squid:
A sub-group of our protesters who I selected called over 50 of The Family Place’s financial contributors to express our concerns about the ads. […] Several of The Family Place’s financial contributors withdrew or reduced the financial gifts they planned for the end-of-the-year giving season.
Please allow me to add the sentence that follows that quote:
I don’t say this with pleasure–I would have preferred that The Family Place do the right thing from the beginning rather than lose the funding.
So what did Glenn expect outraged donors to do when alerted of this campaign? He was shocked, shocked I tell you, to find that donors reduced or eliminated their contributions. Nobody could have foreseen such an event. Stating that this happened as a result of his campaign followed by voicing his lack of pleasure surely means that Glenn in no way intended or expected this to happen. I can see that I don’t have the same low estimate of Glenn’s intelligence that you do.
Yes, he doesn’t,” say this with pleasure.” Yet, he does say it. Nor does he say that he was surprised or disappointed that this happened. Glenn’s a bright guy and knows how to make use of plausible deniability as anybody else.
Glenn also says that he would have preferred TFP to do what he believes is the “right thing” from the beginning. Since they didn’t, Glenn decided to go after their donors rather than discuss his position with TFP. Glenn’s goal is pretty obvious.
Fact is, Glenn’s campaign would have to expect (and hope for) this result, otherwise Glenn, not-stupid man that he is, would have chosen different tactics. Tactics like speaking with the TFP to see if they were at all sympathetic to his point or if there was a way to leave both parties satisfied. Shall I call your employer to alert him that you support attacking a non-profit? What should I expect to result from that call if your employer is at all sympathetic to my point?
Oh and Jake, don’t forget to make it known you expect a “thank you” after you do it either, Glenn sure didn’t.
Jake based on your line of logic when Feministing launched their successful efforts against those dealers of offensive clothes their intent wasn’t to push the message that such things are wrong and offensive to women (which they are) but rather the point was to make sure the sites/store selling those clothes would be denied profits.
Danny,
I think that you’re mistaking lodging complaints with the offending organization with targeting the revenue stream of the offending organization. They’re two entirely separate actions.
All of which is besides the point. I’m not saying that targeting donors is unethical, I’m saying that targeting donors and then expressing regret or surprise that donations have been impacted is, to be generous in my description, disingenuous. I’m also saying that it’s creepy to target an organization’s revenue stream and then claim that you may make a donation yourself since the “vast majority” of their resources go to things of which you approve and not the one thing of which you disapprove that caused you to attempt to reduce their income.
I’m not sure that I can make it any clearer than that, so if you still don’t understand what it is that I’m writing, ask Glenn. I’m sure he understands.
I’m also saying that it’s creepy to target an organization’s revenue stream and then claim that you may make a donation yourself since the “vast majority” of their resources go to things of which you approve and not the one thing of which you disapprove that caused you to attempt to reduce their income.
I can see where one could call that creepy but at the same time it could just be that th doesn’t want to see TFP totally destroyed, just to see them spend their advertising dollars differently. And since some what he felt were positive changes were made (namely to TFP site) why not show some support.
Way to go Ampersand and Alas readers/donors! I appreciate that you responded to this negative campaign and by doing something positive for victims of DV. Yay!