Starbucks coffee logo. :
Starbucks Saudi logo. :
Why did Starbucks agree to change the design of the International Starbucks logo? Why was Saudi Arabia so eager to change the logo? Is there a fear that Saudi men are not capable to control their sexual urges, they would go crazy and start raping women if they see a woman figure on the logo? Saudi Arabia’s notorious anti-women system is more anti-men than anti-women. The system tells don’t trust Saudi men, they are just stupid pieces of shit, just insane assholes, just dickhead morons, rapists and mother-fucker monsters! It must be humiliating and insulting for men. Saudi men should protest against the system that tries to vanish women from everywhere.
24 comments
1 ping
Skip to comment form ↓
sailor1031
October 3, 2012 at 6:06 pm (UTC 5.5) Link to this comment
“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.
richardelguru
October 3, 2012 at 6:11 pm (UTC 5.5) Link to this comment
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.
hexidecima
October 3, 2012 at 6:42 pm (UTC 5.5) Link to this comment
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.
ashleybell
October 3, 2012 at 7:06 pm (UTC 5.5) Link to this comment
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.
ashleybell
October 3, 2012 at 7:01 pm (UTC 5.5) Link to this comment
Abosolutely. The people who refuse to accept their animal origins seem to be the ones most likely o behave like unthinking animals
billopenthalt
October 5, 2012 at 3:15 pm (UTC 5.5) Link to this comment
That’s so right.
Ace of Sevens
October 3, 2012 at 7:32 pm (UTC 5.5) Link to this comment
http://www.deadprogrammer.com/starbucks-logo-mermaid/
Think if Starbucks had stuck with the original topless logo.
Phillip Helbig
October 3, 2012 at 7:57 pm (UTC 5.5) Link to this comment
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?
Bashar bhuiyan
October 3, 2012 at 9:37 pm (UTC 5.5) Link to this comment
i think you are mental(pagol)saudi is the better than any other country of the world .
May Campbell
March 16, 2013 at 11:20 pm (UTC 5.5) Link to this comment
TRUE !! The thing is some Saudi Guys are out of their minds , and changing the logo is just shit !!
rickjackson
October 4, 2012 at 12:20 am (UTC 5.5) Link to this comment
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.
mynameischeese
October 4, 2012 at 1:12 am (UTC 5.5) Link to this comment
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?
Kilian Hekhuis
October 4, 2012 at 5:36 pm (UTC 5.5) Link to this comment
Isn’t the problem with the logo that there’s a human figure in it at all? Given islam’s prohibition of it?
Plop
October 4, 2012 at 7:53 pm (UTC 5.5) Link to this comment
looks like the next step of the evolution of the logo: http://www.brandautopsy.com/2005/06/the_evolution_o.html
Mukkbarat
October 4, 2012 at 8:29 pm (UTC 5.5) Link to this comment
“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.
F
October 5, 2012 at 7:11 am (UTC 5.5) Link to this comment
I’m in the “both” camp, with multiple reasons for thinking both suck.
fork
October 5, 2012 at 7:36 pm (UTC 5.5) Link to this comment
“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.
xmaseveeve
October 7, 2012 at 9:34 am (UTC 5.5) Link to this comment
Won’t be going to Starbuck’s again. Or Ikea.
Kilian Hekhuis
October 11, 2012 at 9:14 pm (UTC 5.5) Link to this comment
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.
Kilian Hekhuis
October 11, 2012 at 9:15 pm (UTC 5.5) Link to this comment
That’s “treating” of course.
Bob the Chef
October 14, 2012 at 7:58 pm (UTC 5.5) Link to this comment
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.
Hussain
February 4, 2013 at 7:33 am (UTC 5.5) Link to this comment
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
Erich Jacoby-Hawkins
February 5, 2013 at 8:34 am (UTC 5.5) Link to this comment
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.
Raghad Aljarbou
March 19, 2013 at 3:18 pm (UTC 5.5) Link to this comment
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?!!
Where Pets Are and Are Not Allowed
March 21, 2013 at 10:23 pm (UTC 5.5) Link to this comment
[...] Starbucks Coffee logo [...]