Comments

  1. sailor1031 says

    “Who sucks? Saudi or Starbucks?”

    Well, both! But don’t expect corporations to stand up for principle; they just want to make money without anyone causing them problems (like riots in the streets, burning stores and coffee shops, harassment by religious police etc) – hence Ikea deletes women from its catalog.

  2. says

    She’s actually still there: just hiding under the water so she can leap out and scare shit out of the…

    Oh fuck!

    Who am I kidding?

    Saudis are just wankers. That’s all.

    • Meshal Alsaleem says

      Bitch just fuck off and look at you wanking off Tom Daly’s picture everyday u gayboy. Anyway Saudi men have nothing to do with this considering that im one of them but u people need to respect the country that is keeping u alive and made u successful in what u do today…

  3. hexidecima says

    It seems that at least the Saudi leadership are scared little boys who have less intelligence and control than most animals, and who project their weaknesses onto everyone else. I wonder that they can actually stand to drink Starbucks with such inablity to deal with strong things.

    • says

      Starbucks coffee is distilled water compared to coffee in the Middle East. I’ve had it as ‘Turkish’ or ‘Greek” coffee, but from what I understand, it’s the same thing.

  4. says

    Yes, people forget the original meaning and use words without thinking about them. OK, language evolves. However, one can influence the direction of its evolution. Recently, Greta Christina decided to use “cheering to the pep squad” rather than “preaching to the choir” in order to avoid religious overtones.

    What is the point in using sexual imagery (“that sucks”, “fuck that”) to criticize something? Shouldn’t “fuck you” be a blessing and not a curse?

  5. says

    I don’t really fault Starbucks for bowing to cultural pressure if it means getting their stores into the country. It’s a business decision. Sure, it’s ridiculous that the logo is controversial, but it’s not something that you should expect Starbucks to take a stand on.

    In the scheme of things, it’s not very important compared to the other injustices Saudia Arabia subjects their men and women to, though I get the point that it’s indicative of the larger pattern of sex-negativity.

  6. mynameischeese says

    Maybe they think Saudi men would start having sex with the logo itself? Like staff in Mecca will have to be prying men off their signs with a broom?

  7. Kilian Hekhuis says

    Isn’t the problem with the logo that there’s a human figure in it at all? Given islam’s prohibition of it?

  8. Mukkbarat says

    “Is there a fear that Saudi men are not capable to control their sexual urges, ”

    Not just a fear
    the highest religious authorities including Sheik Bin Baz Baz uphold this as a truth-It is evident and also revealed. Beware such urgists.

  9. fork says

    “I don’t really fault Starbucks for bowing to cultural pressure if it means getting their stores into the country.”
    I do. If a company agreed to cultural pressure to, say, only hire white people, so they could get their stores into a country, would you still say, hey, it’s just business? What about using slaves instead of hiring employees? What about companies that open up shop in other countries to exploit their lax environmental or labour laws? Do we not fault them because it’s a business decision? The idea that a corporation’s only concern is (or should be) profit, and that we shouldn’t fault them for lucrative but unethical decisions, is amoral.

    And while on its own, this isn’t a big injustice, these things don’t happen in a vacuum. It’s those thousands of little injustices that make the big ones possible.

    Also disagree with the characterization of this as having to do with sex-negativity. It’s about hating women.

  10. Kilian Hekhuis says

    One could argue that companies doing business with Saudi Arabia and other countries trating women badly is akin to countries that did business with the South African apartheid regime. Of course, since this treating badly is religion induced, the cry-out is a lot less than back then with apartheid.

  11. Bob the Chef says

    Yeah, but Starbucks is a huge supporter of gay marraige. Oh noez! Which way will the feminists go now!

    Please. Find a more worthy activity than a stupid logo. Get a job.

  12. Hussain says

    That is a lie stupid ppl ! U r so idiots wts ur problem did they fuck ur women or wt ??? Its not ur busnies even if it was real . Asses

  13. says

    This has nothing to do with gender. It wouldn’t matter if the logo were a merman or mermaid, naked or clothed.

    Images of mythical creatures are strictly forbidden by Islam, as part of the rules against idolatry. That’s why things from Islamic cultures tend to be decorated with geometric patterns instead of stylized people or animals.

  14. Raghad Aljarbou says

    It’s because Allah said haram a man see a women, if it was her daughter or wife or sister .. It’s okay.
    But I’m Saudi teenager girl and I adore Starbucks and always go to Starbucks , and they didn’t change the logo!!
    They didn’t change it! I don’t know where is this I don’t know where is this new logo?!!

  15. says

    Well, I usually don’t care about femisist having their rants. They feel better and nothing changes. And as much as I did defend women driving rights in Saudi Arabia. Because it’s just like monkeys learn to ride a bike. To this generalizing post that is so old and worthless that will not change one bit of anything in the world, I like to say. Boo Hoo.

    Do ye really think that anyone cares one bit?
    Frankly, no one cares. Not one bit. I am sorry to brake it down to you but as rich men of Saudi sell oil to the world.

  16. whom step on your neck says

    Starbucks suck , Saudi also Suck ( for different reasons than you mentioned) and on top of them you are the most suck i ever saw in my whole long life.

    I never went to this low level of dicussion but you forced me to share my opinion about your blog.

  17. Meshal Alsaleem says

    As a Saudi Teenage boy I’ll just say to the author that she is just trying to convince people In what is a lie. The logo never changed what u see in the picture is a lie, this idiotic author is a racist human, again trying to convince people that the Glorious Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is a country where everything is forbidden which is not again us NOT.

  18. ME says

    If anyone still sees this post after all these years, the logo was briefly changed to the crown logo in 2000 or 2001, then reverted to then current logo with the mermaid within a few months. This is an old story and long settled by 2012, when the author dug it up. Her journalistic integrity, in this instance, is what sucks.

Trackbacks

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>