Comments on: Sexual Segregation in Saudi Arabia: Et tu, Starbucks?

By: Southernops

Southernops — Sat, 09 Jun 2007 14:31:59 +0000

I rather swill “Taster’s Choice” than gag on a cup of joe from Starbucks. Only idiots pay “Starbucks prices” for a cup of coffee. They’re right at home in SA.

By: Bruce Wechsler

Bruce Wechsler — Fri, 08 Jun 2007 18:02:36 +0000

Heather: “Where are all the lefty Seattle lovers of human freedom in all this”

Luther: “Starbuck’s of course. Having really heated conversations.”

…about the ‘00 “election”

……………….

To ricpic’s point, but beyond it, we can’t just blame the “progressives” for the situation we’re in. I was an adolescent during the long gas lines of the Carter days. That alternative, abundant and healthier fuels have not been highly developed and become commonplace since those days is one of this generation’s greatest failures so far. Imagine how different the entire geopolitical deck of cards would be if we were essentially self-sufficient on energy? It really irks me to think that we’ve got a perfectly good and vibrant sun pissing all kinds of energy on us every day, and we have not found a decent way to capture it.

By: ricpic

ricpic — Fri, 08 Jun 2007 15:13:45 +0000

“Time for…us to stop drinking the oil of these creepy potentates.”

You can thank the progressives here, with their don’t drill here drill, that we’re drinking from the wells there.

By: Bad Cat Robot

Bad Cat Robot — Fri, 08 Jun 2007 03:26:48 +0000

I recall that a number of US corporations did business in apartheid South Africa, obeying the noxious laws but subverting the intent by training, hiring, and supporting their local black employees in a way that would never happen in a South African company. It would be nice to see Starbucks, if they insist on having a corporate presence in Saudi Arabia, do something like that. Perhaps make all the clever quotes on the paper cups be from uppity, opinionated women? Or make the men use the little tiny section of the store and the big nice fancy section be the “women’s only” part? I’m sure if they really put their minds to it there is something useful they could do.

By: Luther McLeod

Luther McLeod — Fri, 08 Jun 2007 01:43:29 +0000

Yeah Heather, the hypocrisy is rife.

“Where are all the lefty Seattle lovers of human freedom in all this”

Starbuck’s of course. Having really heated conversations.

By: heather

heather — Fri, 08 Jun 2007 01:03:45 +0000

there are plenty of reasons to despise the Saudis, even ignoring the fact that their money is funding most of the global war on terror.

remember the big move to force South Africa to stop its apartheid? Alls the excitement, all the marches, all the placards, all the boycotts???

Starbucks (and any other retailer who sets up shop in SA) should feel a lot of heat in North America.

Now. Where are all the lefty Seattle lovers of human freedom in all this? Gosh. Silence. It really isn’t our business, is it?

By: Luther McLeod

Luther McLeod — Fri, 08 Jun 2007 00:07:24 +0000

SB leaving would be a good idea, but then they would be replaced by someone else, whether American or other. Kind o’ like us not buying oil from SA, someone else will. Some problems seem almost intractable.

I was puzzled by the article as well, there never seemed too be a point to it, especially with the last sentence:

“I take the abaya off, expecting to feel liberated. But somehow, it always feels like defeat.”

Now WTH does that mean? That ‘resistance is futile’, that she faces worse back home, that she was unable to make any headway in changing the reality on the ground? I dunno.

Hello yourself Bruce, long time no read.

By: tioedong

tioedong — Thu, 07 Jun 2007 23:12:57 +0000

It’s worse than that. About 25% of those living in Saudi Arabia are foreigners who have even less rights.
The estimated one million Catholics don’t have a church there, and that number doesn’t include protestants, Hindus, animists, and local Shiite Arabs who live in the eastern part of Saudi who have no freedom of worship.

By: Bruce Wechsler

Bruce Wechsler — Thu, 07 Jun 2007 22:18:10 +0000

My point (and I’m only guessing at Rogers, admittedly) is that SB should leave SA. Political/economic reality, unfortunately, is that we as a nation are still too hooked on the Saudi Soda to actually treat SA with the lack of respect they deserve for their incivility to women. So the U.S. government can’t do much (I don’t think it needs to kiss Saudi posterior as much as it does, but that’s another story), but we as consumers may be able to make some difference if we help convince businesses “not to go there”. The rich Saudi men do love their Western stuff; make it harder for them to get is all I’m saying.

I also think that without some of her negative comments about Western, or Western-educated, men in the article (i.e. her tally of those “who seemed to condone, even relish, the relegation of women in the Arab world”, and her “liberal, U.S.-educated professor” who did not get as outraged as she would have liked after her ill-treatment outside the bank), this article would not have seen the light of day in the LA Times. It’s only OK to knock the Saudi repression if we also blame the U.S. for something. I hope I’m wrong, but it is the L.A. Times.

BW
(hey there, Luther!)

By: Luther McLeod

Luther McLeod — Thu, 07 Jun 2007 21:10:23 +0000

When I think of Starbucks, which is rarely, I think progressive. Whether Bruce W.’s point re Roger is correct or not, the ‘high optics’ start is a good idea. Though in actuality I have no idea how Starbucks could effect much change in SA. It seems too me they would just be asked to leave.