« Claim: Starbucks' reputation on the line in union-busting court case | Main | Weekend open thread: Post your Starbucks-related thoughts here »
June 08, 2007
US reporter surprised by Starbucks' men-only section in Saudi Arabia
Los Angeles Times reporter Megan Stack was happy to see a Starbucks in Saudi Arabia. When she ordered her drink, "the man behind the counter gave me a bemused look." He confronted her after she sat in a chair. "You cannot stay here," he said. "Men only." The reporter writes: "He didn't tell me what I would learn later: Starbucks had another, unmarked door around back that led to a smaller espresso bar, and a handful of tables smothered by curtains. That was the 'family' section. As a woman, that's where I belonged." (Los Angeles Times)
June 8, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
Starbucks doesn't belong in that f*ed up world. I'm sad the company even compromises with a culture like that; that's where I personally draw the line.
But then, I like respect as a woman. What do I know? My brain must be too small to wrap around that one. :P
Posted by: atownsbuxrules | Jun 8, 2007 10:40:51 AM
No, Starbucks doesn't belong there or in China either.
I guess the almighty dollar trumps human decency.
Posted by: Lou Sussler | Jun 8, 2007 11:08:18 AM
Starbucks can go where they want. Do I agree with upholding something like that? No, absolutely not, but I wasn't born in that country, and chances are, neither were you. Different country, different culture. Somethings that are not acceptable to the US are in other countries, and who are we to judge them for centuries of the way they were raised.
If you go to another country, you should expect to have to abide by their cultures, whether you agree with them or not. (and if you don't agree, then maybe you shouldn't be there.)
Posted by: Scorpio370 | Jun 8, 2007 12:56:21 PM
But Scorp, one of the big values of Starbucks is respect and dignity for all people...how does setting up shop in Saudi Arabia and allowing women to be treated like this up-hold this standard? Bottom line-- SBUX should be more selective about where they put their stores, esp. since they are mostly company owned and NOT franchised. Yes, if you go to another country you must abide by their standards, which is why we shouldn't be over there in the first place since they don't follow the American Companys standards that they are making money off of.
Posted by: JJ | Jun 8, 2007 1:06:46 PM
This could and does happen in coutries that practice extreme Islam. It could happen any western country(will of the people) with the influx of people from Muslim country. In Saudi Arabia they also have police force that only inforces the muslim dress code for women. Most Americans dont realize how much freedom they have and how much most people in other countries do not. Most Americans dont realize that freedom can easly go away if we dont protect it.
Posted by: | Jun 8, 2007 1:19:41 PM
"If you go to another country, you should expect to have to abide by their cultures, whether you agree with them or not. (and if you don't agree, then maybe you shouldn't be there.)"
You are absolutely right, which is why I personally wouldn't go there and is precisely why Starbucks shouldn't be there.
Posted by: Lou Sussler | Jun 8, 2007 1:32:42 PM
I agree that the way the Saudis are treating women is unacceptable, but isn't one of our guiding principles to embrace diversity? Who are we to play moral police when dealing with a culture with which we are unfamiliar?
Posted by: Kelowna Starbucks Rebel | Jun 8, 2007 2:36:50 PM
JJ, You busted me on this one. I have to agree 100% with giving respect and dignity to everyone. The question is, do the SBux over there have the same standards as us or not? Are they corporate owned or not.
Posted by: Scorpio370 | Jun 8, 2007 2:39:46 PM
"I agree that the way the Saudis are treating women is unacceptable, but isn't one of our guiding principles to embrace diversity? Who are we to play moral police when dealing with a culture with which we are unfamiliar?"
C'mon. This is the same culture that permits and encourages female circumcision. It's an entire attitude towards women. Trust me, my husband is middle eastern. It is okay to play moral police when defending what is right.
Posted by: surfer | Jun 8, 2007 3:01:19 PM
Difficult not to get political or preachy in discussions like this. We all colour the world with our prejudices and rarely see things for what they are. Speaking as a white European male, having spent sixteen years living in Saudi Arabia, and being, to my mind at least, relatively uncompromising when it comes to matters of human dignity, gender equality and whatnot -- in the Saudi Arabia I know, I couldn't imagine it any other way. We often take for granted the fact certain things work in our western 'democracies'. Rarely realising, for that matter, that fifty years ago they wouldn't have.
Posted by: Chris | Jun 8, 2007 3:37:34 PM
The Starbucks stores in the Mideast, as well as in many other countries, are woned by a cooperative venture between Starbucks and a local (in the case of Saudi Arabia, Kuwati-owned) business.
They are not company-owned stores.
The rules they follow, are the rules of the country.
Is it right? No, I don't think so. Is it a business-driven decision? Yup.
Should stockholders bitch and scream and rant and rave about it? Oh, yeah.
...Speaking as a stockholder, of course.
Will it change anything? No, probably not.
Posted by: sbuxnewbie | Jun 8, 2007 4:36:07 PM
"They are not company-owned stores."
Who actually owns the stores is but a technically. Starbucks owns the brand.
Brand Management 101 – thou shall not crap on the brand you spent a gazillion dollars building.
Denigrating women in Saudi Arabia just to make another dollar isn’t going to be a big hit with female employees in the US.
Posted by: Charlie B | Jun 8, 2007 5:27:49 PM
It's rather ethnocentric to pretend that we Americans have all of the answers. Yes, women and men can sit in the same room here, but can we really say that we have true gender equality here? Each culture takes their own moral and ethical path- we might be further along in our pursuit, but I don't think we have the right to stand on our pedestal and cry out against Starbucks. The really hard work is to improve our world around us, right here.
Posted by: | Jun 8, 2007 5:56:32 PM
Anon,
That kind of complacency is what allowed hitler to gain his foothold in Europe...
Posted by: Anony2 | Jun 8, 2007 6:11:05 PM
It's assumed that the women are being forced into the separate espresso bar; in fact, it's quite possible that the Saudi women are more comfortable in that kind of an atmosphere. Although I'm a secular American, I have a number of Muslim female acquaintances who prefer to be among only women when in public if they can do so.
Posted by: R | Jun 8, 2007 6:14:25 PM
They may be more comfortable there, but if you read the article, you would see that the author was kicked out of the man section. It was mandatory.
Posted by: Anony2 | Jun 8, 2007 6:15:58 PM
This is from a country where heterosexual men hold hands (remember Bush held hands with the Saudi Prince), but can not sit next to a woman.
Starbucks should not be there.
Posted by: Christine | Jun 8, 2007 6:25:58 PM
I just don't get it- we go into Iraq to make things better, and Americans complain. We accept the cultural differences and not try to change the world, and Americans complain. Get over it kids!
Posted by: | Jun 8, 2007 6:47:59 PM
OK! I make my return on this subject. I have read about "embracing diversity" but what does that mean? If we still had counters that said "WHITES ONLY" signs would that be embracing diversity? Well how are we to reconcile that with having separate sections for men and women? I thought "separate but equal" ended years ago? Apparently I was wrong.
Treating everyone with respect and dignity is because we are all created equal, regardless of where we live. The rights and dignity of every human person is because we are all brothers and sisters.
For those of you out there, I do believe we are all equals. We all are born, laugh, cry and in the shadow of life and fade into the dark night.
BOSTON STARBUCKS REBEL
PRIMUS INTER PARES
STARBUCKS REBEL ALLIANCE
AIM SN: BOSTONSTARREBEL
Posted by: BOSTON STARBUCKS REBEL | Jun 8, 2007 7:12:11 PM
Oh yeah, and I suppose when Starbucks opens in India, the "Untouchables" will not be allowed to sit in certain sections too?
Posted by: BOSTON STARBUCKS REBEL | Jun 8, 2007 7:13:51 PM
"It is okay to play moral police when defending what is right."
WHOA.
Just because something is morally correct to one person does not make it correct to all people. Everyone has a sense of morality, whether it is spoken or unspoken, well-formed or newly budding. We are all moral in our own sense. Muslim-centric countries such as SA are VERY different than countries like the US, in ways political, economical, and yes, moral.
So... cut the moral police. Everyone. I agree with R, with the topic of women being comfortable. It's known that there are sects of Islam (the main one being the Shiite) that are radically extreme in their views; I'm glad that you are all very equality-based, and I agree with you. But it's a very different situation elsewhere: Starbucks is just establishing itself as the Third Place wherever it exists.
seventysix [76]
HAUD IGNOTA LOQUOR
STARBUCKS REBEL ALLIANCE
Posted by: seventysix | Jun 8, 2007 8:34:44 PM
As earlier poster mention, you should really read the whole article. Saudi Arabia is not a "you do your thing, I'll do mine" place.
The reporter (a blue-eyed, light-haired American woman) is bullied into behaving *exactly* like an observant Muslim woman, from wearing the abaya to avoiding any social contact with men to being forbidden to drive a car.
(And it's made very clear that the men prefer it that way, and in fact, get huffy when a woman is anywhere in their field of vision.)
Posted by: Harriet | Jun 8, 2007 8:35:01 PM
And in America, we don't bully people into acting as we think culturally appropriate? I guess it's just okay when we do it, because we do it to both genders. That must make it alright.
Posted by: R | Jun 8, 2007 9:10:31 PM
"Treating everyone with respect and dignity is because we are all created equal, regardless of where we live. The rights and dignity of every human person is because we are all brothers and sisters."
I agree with Boston Starbucks Rebel. Everyone, regardless of race or gender, is due respect and consideration because we are ALL human beings. This kind of thing may be the norm in that country, but that doesn't necessarily make it right. Unfortunately, when companies like Starbucks go in and allow it to happen in their stores, all they are doing is basically agreeing with it. And I thought Starbucks was better than that.
Posted by: Kat | Jun 8, 2007 9:26:08 PM
BSR... let's not bring up the segregation issue here. You're only alienating the people you want to be friends with.
Posted by: Darleen's Filthy Chicken | Jun 8, 2007 11:09:44 PM
Allowing women to be treated like second-class citizens and forced into a smaller side room that's curtained off, and telling a woman who ventures into the wrong section that she is not allowed to be there is Just Plain Wrong. Shame on Starbucks for allowing it.
Reasonable people can disagree on a lot of issues, but this is not one that's open to debate. The world business community shunned South Africa for their apartheid policies. The same thing should happen to Saudi Arabia.
Posted by: exSFbarista | Jun 8, 2007 11:40:41 PM
South Africa doesn't have oil.
Saudi Arabia does.
Saudi Arabia is also not a democracy. But Bush is kissing their asses.
So much for spreading freedom and democracy.
We only do it when it suits us or we have something to gain from it.
And "BOSTONSTARBUCKSREBEL" don't even go there.
Posted by: Matteo | Jun 8, 2007 11:48:35 PM
Exactly - multinational businesses in South Africa segregated their facilities by RACE (as in you, white, here and you, black, there). If Starbucks had existed back then or during the Jim Crow South, would you just sit idly by and say, "Oh well, that's how they do it over there."
Starbucks' hypocrisy is appalling here. On the one hand, they quite literally sell their image as a socially responsible company, while across the globe they are willful participants in apartheid.
Posted by: Kewpie | Jun 8, 2007 11:49:18 PM
"Embracing diversity" in this case means recognising that not every country has the same cultural norms. Yes, Saudi Arabia is at the far end of that spectrum, and no, not many of us would subscribe to their beliefs or be comfortable living there.
But treating the Saudis with "respect and dignity" is to observe their society's laws and practices, and to abide by them. It would be supremely arrogant to do anything else.
When you go to another country, you don't start instructing people of that country on how to be doing things. I live in the UK, so we don't really tip in Starbucks. When I go to a Starbucks in the US, I accept that this is the accepted norm and tip appropriately. I don't start telling people that baristas shouldn't be subsidised by the customer, and wouldn't have to be if any one of the 50 states had a minimum wage close to that in Britain ($10.60). I wouldn't address the lack of logic in tipping a larger amount for a more expensive drink, given that a higher price in a coffee shop doesn't really reflect a proportionally greater effort to make that drink. I don't do this, I just tip.
Posted by: mister_barista | Jun 9, 2007 1:15:25 AM
Mister, there is a big difference in "cultural differences" and obvious human rights violations being supported by an American company. Starbucks should not set up shop in a place that treats people this way--plain the simple. If they want to run their country like this--where women are treated like trash and gays are executed for being gay on a daily basis then so be it--but Starbucks shouldn't be supporting this. Let them open their own brand of Coffee shops, not use Starbucks as an operation for discrimination. Give me a break on embraceing diversity. I highly doubt this is what they had in mind with "diversity". I think they meant all people--regardless of race, class, religion, sexual orientation, age, language...Starbucks embraces them. Not "Starbucks embraces all discrimination if it's not in America if the country treats people like poo because that's diversity!" No thanks. We shouldn't be there with our brand name.
Posted by: JJ | Jun 9, 2007 1:35:43 AM
JJ, give me an example of a political issue on which Starbucks has taken a rock-solid stance? They claim to embrace diversity, and in my mind, do that within their stores (for the sake of argument, those stores in North America and Europe). I've never come across Starbucks being accused of, say, discriminating against a partner or prospective employee because they were homosexual. That's a good thing, it demonstrates the company has principles.
But has Starbucks made an outright declaration in support of gay marriage? Should Starbucks refuse to operate stores in states that legislate against two people of the same sex getting married? I'd welcome such a declaration, but it won't happen, and more to the point Starbucks isn't obligated to.
In the same vein, Starbucks is not obligated to be drawing the international community's attention to gender inequality in Saudi Arabia. Nor are they obligated to go there and break Sharia law. But it a leap of logic to say that by proxy, Starbucks is entirely supportive of the Saudi royal family, and is consenting to human rights abuses.
Also, I think it needs to be pointed out, that said human rights abuses against women (let's leave children and foreigners aside) are made with reference to the idea that women have no legal capacity to act on their own behalf. 'Abuses' are not the requirement for women and men to be seperated in Saudi Arabia, this is a part of their culture, and frankly, none of our business. Indeed, while such seperation is only evident in a handful of countries, men and women are seperated in the mosque in all Islamic societies.
I'll repeat my point for clarity: it is not up to Western citizens or corporations to criticise the beliefs, practices or laws of other societies.
Posted by: mister_barista | Jun 9, 2007 2:27:38 AM
I want to know why I can't discuss segregation? Isn't telling people where to sit based upon gender, segregation? And yes, there is a basis for "embracing diversity" as one of my DM's put, "Diversity is taking the talents and strengthens of the individual and therefore using them to make Starbucks a stronger company." If one part is damaged, then the whole is in fact damaged. Tolerating cultural differences is simply unacceptable when they violate the dignity of each human person.
The logical fallacy of using time is wrong. Do you tell time by an argument? Then why would you use time to prove your argument? To say we are an enlightened society, is not really true, if there is a second-class and marginalized part of our society who does not partake and enjoy all of our liberties and benefits.
While radical freedom, causes situation of complete alienation. Persons should be allowed to use their freedom in a responsible manner. Perhaps, the ancient Greeks were right with their "virtue theory" that allowed people to enter even the most tempting situations but make the right decision because the other one would seem so abhorrent to them. If men are afraid that a woman might be temptress, then perhaps to paraphrase St. Jerome they need a cold shower of chastity to quench passionate lust.
BOSTON STARBUCKS REBEL
PRIMUS INTER PARES
STARBUCKS REBEL ALLIANCE
AIM SN: BOSTONSTARREBEL
Posted by: BOSTON STARBUCKS REBEL | Jun 9, 2007 3:28:39 AM
Maybe Rosa Parks was not embracing diversity when she decided to sit in the "Whites Only" section of the bus? Or would the sign just have to say "Men Only" for her to be not embracing diversity?
Posted by: | Jun 9, 2007 4:42:05 AM
"But treating the Saudis with "respect and dignity" is to observe their society's laws and practices, and to abide by them. It would be supremely arrogant to do anything else."
Arrogance is our national pasttime, and frankly is also at the root of most of the issues brought up in the items Jim posts about, and the fights people get into around here.
Thank you MISTER_BARISTA, Chris, and R for your opinions. :) It's nice to hear from people who don't adtop stereotypical philosophies around here.
Rant off.
Posted by: HopkinsBella | Jun 9, 2007 7:37:16 AM
I could go on about gender discrimination, but I won't. This entire issue simply reflects the state of our nation at this point in time. Bush celebrates women voting in Iraq and yet is silent on women being separated in Saudia Arabia. Boston Starbuck Rebel you are so right. Most of the reasoning for women to be covered and separated is because Arab men claim it is tempting. Basically, they can't control themselves. Women have to be separated for protection from men. I wonder why these men even get married if they can't stand the sight of a woman. Basically, most corporations could care less about low wages, discrimination, labor abuse, environmental impact, etc. as long as they keep making more money.
Posted by: Christine | Jun 9, 2007 8:16:23 AM
One wonders how many of the people who are OK with what Saudi Arabia does are female.
Funny how discrimination is just a little cultural quirk when it doesn't affect you, but a civil rights violation when it does.
Posted by: fiat lux | Jun 9, 2007 9:29:30 AM
I don't see how American arrogance comes into it at all. The idea is that Starbucks has a particular set of core values which is incompatible with the segregation of women, and so therefore they shouldn't participate in the segregation of women. That's not arrogance, that's ethics.
Yes, that's the way they do things in Saudi Arabia. But it's not the way Starbucks does things (at least inasmuch as we can glean from the bumper sticker guides to Starbucks values). So if they want to stick to their principles, they shouldn't do business in Saudi Arabia.
I consider it polite to speak French in cafés in Paris, to tip well in countries that demand it, to kiss cheeks or shake hands as the local customs require. But segregation of women and ethnic minorities is off the table. That means that I put respect for the individual ahead of my respect for cultural diversity.
If Starbucks can be said to believe in anything, it will demonstrate its beliefs by its actions as a corporation and as a brand. Clearly, Starbucks' "values" are compatible with the subjugation of women, no matter what it says in the various partner guides.
Posted by: Ed | Jun 9, 2007 9:58:11 AM
Bottom line: a market exists for Starbucks in Saudia Arabia, so of course we are there, no matter the differences of opinion, human rights violations, etc.
If there was a market for Starbucks in hell, we'd be there, too.
Posted by: StL Shift | Jun 9, 2007 10:31:05 AM
While it is certainly true that there are cultural differences that vary according to country and region, and these differences should usually be respected, I do not believe that it is never acceptable to judge something as wrong, particularly where individual rights and dignity are concerned. Most people would agree that it was right to condemn South Africa for apartheid, so frankly I do not see how this is any different. As a customer, I was disappointed to hear this story and I believe that this damages the *$ brand.
Posted by: Tall Americano | Jun 9, 2007 11:42:04 AM
Here's the real point I think everyone is missing because you are not getting back to the basics - what the hell was she doing taking an assignment in a place where she did not understand the rules of the road? Had she been any reporter worth the moniker, she would have known about the general situation before she ever set foot in the country.
I also find a lot of you advocating a double standard - pity.
And for the rest of you who are saying that Starbucks should not be here or there in different countries, then the same rule should apply for ALL US companies, not just Starbucks. Now consider the impact of that silliness.
This will not affect Sttarbuck's brand any more than it affects any other multinational's brand(s). Get a grip, folks, and use a brain instead of rampant emotionalism.
Posted by: Jim Lane | Jun 9, 2007 12:23:15 PM
I am a woman. More over I am a woman in the military and I expect respect and fair rules for all. That said I will say that many devout Muslim women get offended if they are forced to share seating/sections with men. They also get offended if governments, like France, do not allow them the personal FREEDOM to wear an hijab. I'm sure some women are angry about separate areas, but in that culture many more are angry about being forced into western lifestyles. When in Rome...
Posted by: | Jun 9, 2007 2:05:59 PM
Starbucks is a Western-based store, supporting Western values. Expanding this company to nations such as Saudi Arabia can only be beneficial, as Starbucks is unlikely to bow to the values of one, closed-minded culture. If anything, this is a beneficial step in the movement of changing an old-world practice.
Posted by: Indie2 | Jun 9, 2007 3:50:44 PM
The western reporter was too quick to read sexism into a foreign practice. The same can be said of many naive albeit well-intentioned contributors on this thread. Separating sexes doesn't entail sexism. Indeed, when public sexual separation is understood from within the perspective of this culture rather than through an inapplicable Western perspective, this sexual separation is in at least one dimension conventional protection of female dignity, not an insult. We take for granted the degree of freedom in sexual customs in the West due to the strong rule of law that enables such freedom. Not so everywhere else.
Where the rule of law has been historically weaker, different cultural conventions arise to preserve social order and security. Some of these practices deal with sex since sex is major potential cause of social chaos. The practice of public sexual separation ensures men aren't tempted to abuse women. It, in principle at least, ensures women can be out without worrying about abuse from men. This practice is taken for granted in various sexually modest cultures of the world. It's appreciated as much by women as by men since it alleviates certain sexual dangers and inconveniences of being in public.
It's not how we do it in the West. Then again, life is different in the West than in the East. So the East does things differently. This isn’t saying misogyny and all the bad things this reporter aren’t an element of other cultures. It’s just that misogyny isn’t an effective snap explanation for every difference between Western and Eastern sexual culture. If the bartender looked at the lady funny, it’s because she didn’t understand the standards of modesty he took for granted.
It’s as if a foreign female from a sexually liberal country walked into a US department store and started changing in the men’s dressing room. “Sorry, Miss,” the clerk would say with a benign but bemused smirk to the unwitting tourist. “What are you doing? I assume you mean no harm. But that’s not how things work. What’re you’re doing won’t fly with all our customers. Even if it’s OK with some, that’s just not how we do it around here. You need to change in the women’s dressing room.”
Now this fictional female reporter could assume Americans are backwards, medieval, and women hating to degrade women by forcing them to change separate from the men. Insulting! But then, we Americans understand that this foreign reporter would be reading their own prejudices about American prejudice into a convention Americans take for granted but which nonetheless has sexually benign and valid reasons for existing: public sexual separation of men and women’s changing spaces.
The same principle at work in this hypothetical applies to the actual case of this naïve but well-intentioned reporters encounter with non-Western sexual customs for coffee bars. It also applies to the encounter of many Westerners with her story. Anyway, I think it’s good for people to recognize this mistake. That Starbucks allows different countries to preserve such cultural practices doesn’t show that Starbucks apologizes for Middle Eastern misogyny in contradiction of their corporate values of “respect and dignity”. Rather, it shows Starbucks accords respect and dignity to the cultures it does business with. It understands those cultures on their own terms, not on the terms of the West.
This isn't to say all morality is culturally relative. But it's to say that cultural meanings are culturally relative. And relative to a Western mindset, the meaning of foreign sexual practices are easy to misconstrue as negative to women when in fact their meaning within their original culture is more neutral, even positive.
Posted by: barista | Jun 9, 2007 5:44:27 PM
I had a lot of time to think about what I said and perhaps some of my comments could be misinterpreted as offensive, but that is coming from a Western mindset maybe?
After all they could be, "And relative to a Western mindset, the meaning of foreign sexual practices are easy to misconstrue as negative."
BOSTON STARBUCKS REBEL
PRIMUS INTER PARES
STARBUCKS REBEL ALLIANCE
AIM SN: BOSTONSTARREBEL
Posted by: BOSTON STARBUCKS REBEL | Jun 10, 2007 4:13:42 AM
Barista, it amazes me that people always make exception to women's discrimination, but if it is racial, religious or age people are up in arms. Your point is that it is acceptable to segregate based on gender for women's safety. If women are in such danger no cultural or religious alibis can justify such behavior of men. The excuse that we do not understand their culture is nonsense. You act as if women in the west have a gift to not be living in such a separated culture, but that is the ideal and a human right. It is well known that men of other cultures that work or visit the west still discriminate and assault western women even though they are in western country. (http://parisparfait.typepad.com/paris_parfait/2007/05/this_morning_i_.html)
Mukhtar Mai (working to protect women in Pakistan)
If a western woman should respect middle-eastern cultural practices so should a man from a foreign country respect the laws and rights of women in the west. Do you justify the stoning of that Iraqi young women in the news recently? How about revenge rape for something a male family member did? It is nice to gloss over these issues, but the reality is women’s lives deserve more respect. We are all humans from the planet earth and no one should be separated as if we were animals that simply can not cohabitate in public.
Posted by: Christine | Jun 10, 2007 9:48:56 AM
Hey Christine,
Thank you for saying all those things which I did not want to say because I know I would be stoned here to if I spoke up my mind. I believe, that men and women should be treated equally under the law. The belief that "separate but equal" is absolutely erroneousness, regardless of the time or place. The dignity and respect for each person does not simply change because of "cultural" differences. I'll say that, so what if Hitler thought killing Jews was wrong, 6 million dead cannot be wrong because after all they are inferior and the Nazi way of life is right. The totalitarian way of life imposed by Nazis and the Saudis government is unacceptable. And BTW, the Nazis were in the West in all of you forgot that point.
The oppression and exploitation of innocent persons is simply reprehensible. In fact, to treat half of your society as second-class citizens is unthinkable, but it happens everyday throughout the world.
Each human person deserves basic human rights.
BOSTON STARBUCKS REBEL
PRIMUS INTER PARES
STARBUCKS REBEL ALLIANCE
AIM SN: BOSTONSTARREBEL
Posted by: BOSTON STARBUCKS REBEL | Jun 10, 2007 10:24:48 AM
Praise Allah and death to the infidel! Sorry, I meant Amen! Alleluia!
Posted by: LIVE FREE OR DIE | Jun 10, 2007 10:25:38 AM
Christine, you say exactly how I feel. I don't feel I 'need' to open my thoughts, heart, whatever and accept anything in regard to this. Women in those countries are treated like second rate citizens, and Starbucks being there, allowing such things to happen in their own store, only makes it seem like we approve or at least are willing to turn a blind eye. But hey, it's all about the buck isn't it?
Frankly I'm sick and tired of it being 'ok' when women are somehow held back, discriminated, dominated, what have you. If this were happening to some other group, people would be far more upset. But it's just women, and well you know, we're such damned temptresses men have to keep us under a tight fist.
Women are human beings too, just like men, and deserve the same respect as them. We may not have the right to tell them how to live their lives, but we certainly don't have to go over there in help promote it.
Posted by: Kat | Jun 10, 2007 3:02:51 PM
Last time I checked there were separate bathrooms for men and women in Starbucks in America. Is that apartied? Or is that separate because it makes people more comfortable? Before you rant off and try to force American cultural norms on women in Saudia Arabia, check with those women and see how they feel.
Personally I have been there. Personally I am Muslim. Personally I don't necessarily agree with their sepration, and it certainly didn't make me feel comfortable, but I'm not vain enough to think I know better, and that there is even an issue there.
And with the world in the state that it is, I'd think that I'd rather see Starbucks wield its Corporate strength to end hunger in the world, or genocide, or something everyone can get behind, and not worry about the culture of a tiny country that we just may not understand.
Posted by: Kearns | Jun 10, 2007 7:00:15 PM
Actually, many stores where I live have only one bathroom for both men and women because there is not enough space to accommodate two separate bathrooms. The reason why there are two separate bathrooms is not because men can't keep it in their pants.
Posted by: BOSTON STARBUCKS REBEL | Jun 10, 2007 7:37:06 PM
I wonder if the women there are accepting of their station in life because they truly enjoy it, or because it's all the know? What happens to the woman there that tries and do things differently?
Posted by: Kat | Jun 10, 2007 10:33:30 PM
Yeah, when in Rome, you might as well do as the Romans. Personally, I would do all I could to *not* set foot in Saudi Arabia; I'd try to get myself re-assigned. It kinda rings hollow to me, to travel to an obviously backward, repressed country, then come home and whine/complain about it.
Posted by: Tall Drip | Jun 11, 2007 7:04:49 AM
boo saudia arabia
yay starbucks
Posted by: doobster | Jun 11, 2007 9:30:30 AM
I personally try to not to support countries like Saudi Arabia by using public transportation as often as possible. I also try not to buy products that were bought in China. I believe that governments that oppress its own people should not be bought from. And do not get me started on Dafur. The Saudi and Chinese governments both do not allow freedom of religion which I think is one of the biggest offenses possible out there. Whatever, your faith is, I believe that one should be allowed to practice it in the manner one deems appropriate as long as it doesn't include human sacrifice or present themselves as a clear and present danger. Telling a person that they cannot sit somewhere because of Islamic laws seems to go counter to the separate of church and state which was instituted in this country to prevent such situations from occurring, although in this instance it would be mosque and state. Approached from a clearly humanistic viewpoint this segregation based upon gender seems irrelevant and spurious to the entirety of society.
BOSTON STARBUCKS REBEL
PRIMUS INTER PARES
STARBUCKS REBEL ALLIANCE
AIM SN: BOSTONSTARREBEL
Posted by: BOSTON STARBUCKS REBEL | Jun 11, 2007 12:12:44 PM
To Christine
Christine, maybe you feel completely comfortable with zero sexual separation between men and women. But most women favor this. Most women like some separation of men from women. Many women don’t want male strangers “in their space”. Generally, this space is seen as something to be respected, not dismissed.
Despite the strident tone of your dismissal, I’m believe you don’t either. And I’m guessing it has everything to do with your feelings of safety. For example, if a stranger makes lewd comments to you on this message board, you’ll be less threatened than if they were made to your face. Why? More could come of it if you if the stranger were physically near. Space matters.
Just as you don’t know who’s a creep on the net, you don’t know who’s a creep on the street. Given this uncertainty, certain compromising public spaces are sexually separated to respect women’s personal space and protect them from creeps. But in our culture it’s accepted that there are some public situations where creep-factor should be mitigated. I gave the public changing room example before. Thus we have customs of sexual separation in every part of America. And the world for that matter.
These customs don’t exist because anyone thinks all men are rapists who don’t rape only because they’re kept physically separate from women. Rather it’s understood that some men are creeps of varying degrees. Creeps do things that creep women out. Women should be able to go out without being creeped out. Many men agree. Thus many men and women across the world, including all parts of the US and Europe, favor some degree of public sexual division. The custom lets women go around without worrying about certain creeps who we know are always out there. When this is done in the West, it’s taken for granted by Westerners. To violate this custom is considered disrespectful to women. When it’s done in the Middle East, it’s taken for granted by Middle Easterners. To have this custom is considered disrespectful to women.
This difference exists because many Westerners are rightly angry about sexual injustice in that part of the world. But this anger gives them a frame for understanding the Middle East: sexist. Everything they learn about the Middle East is shunted through this frame: sexist. Yet not every difference between East and West is really understood through this sexist frame. Some differences are just differences. In this case, the foreign custom of having a coffee bar space for men to have man time away from women and for women to have woman time away from men isn’t necessarily a sexist custom. Not any more intrinsically sexist than the same customs that exist to let women and men do their own thing apart from each other in the US, including the most liberal, feminist parts of the US.
There’s a big logical leap from (A) recognizing this distinction between sexist and benign public sexual division and (B) ignoring or supporting real abuses of women in the world, in this case, Saudi Arabia. I think what allows you to get so righteously angry and dismissive with my comment is that you take my comment as excusing all the real abuses of women that occur in Saudi Arabia, an excuse that, if anyone made it, might deserve anger and dismissal. But I have to separate what you’re angry and dismissive of from what I’m talking about because they’re two completely different things. I’m not the best scapegoat for your anger at Middle Eastern human rights violations because I’m as against them as you are.
Perhaps some of the difference between how we react to this story can be understood through our different understandings of how to address sexual injustice in the world. We both assume that sexual injustices exist outside the west, including in countries like Saudi Arabia. I don’t think these injustices will disappear until we first understand that part of the world on its own terms. We can’t eliminate unquestioned prejudices in other parts of the world if we see them through too many of our own unquestioned prejudices. This is because prejudices can distort reality making us less capable of addressing it.
Regarding the reality of sexual inequality in different countries, if we don’t understand those countries, we’re less capable of addressing the real sexual inequalities there if we don’t distinguish the real injustices from the non-real ones. I don’t think it’s effective to uncritically lump together every jarring cultural sexual difference “sexist”. We have to sort through these differences critically. Otherwise, when our cultures interact, we’re going to look like we don’t get it because, in fact, we don’t get it. Just as many of the critiques of the West of the East strike us as righteous but misguided because these critics are understanding the West through their own prejudices rather than on the West’s terms; because, in short, they don’t get it.
We need to “get it”. That’s why I think it’s important to second guess the snap judgment that cultural differences between West and East reflect sexism in the East. And in the case of the one issue at hand in this post, I don’t think that sexual separation in public is necessarily anti-woman. The same practice exists in the US in another form and isn’t sexist. So to say that this reporter really encountered sexism requires more facts than the ones she got, or at least, more than the ones this post presented.
To Starbucks Boston Rebel,
I’m sorry you feel like people will stone you for disagreeing. In any case, we disagree but there’s no stone in my hand. I can’t speak for others. But I think everyone on this board shares a common value of women’s rights. Despite this shared value, we disagree about what this shared value implies for what beliefs we can and can’t hold. In this case it’s the issue of whether public sexual separation is necessarily discriminatory segregation or not. I think such disagreements should be respected to a degree since they stem from our common condition as somewhat limited, ignorant creatures trying to cobble a better perspective out of our limited individual perspectives. Disagreement is part of human life. So is discussion. Let’s be civil about it. Even when others aren’t. Maybe they’ll follow by example.
To Kat
Your reply interprets my comment as sexual exceptionalism: the view that this case of discrimination against women doesn’t matter because sexual injustice isn’t as bad as other injustices e.g. racial, religious. This is a misinterpretation. The real idea is that the situation outlined in the post can’t necessarily be called a case of sexual injustice in the first place, not just in virtue of it involving sexual separation. Why? Because there are so many cases of sexual separation in public spaces that don’t necessarily imply sexual injustice. Separate bathrooms. Separate changing rooms. Rules for not leering. Limitation of sexual speech in work spaces. Is it such a stretch to imagine a culture with a similar custom applied to coffee bars without this being sexist? It’s not. Since it’s not, there’s an ambiguity in the story this reporter told.
Was the coffee bar separated because that’s just what makes women and men comfortable, or was it because the owner was sexist? Did the Western reporter really understand the customs she encountered, or did she make a snap judgment of these customs through the lens of her own customs during her very first encounter with them? If in fact it turned out she was discriminated against because the bar’s rules were motivated by sexual injustice, then there would be no question of whether this injustice were on a par with racial or religious injustice. This sexual injustice would matter as much as any other kind of sexual injustice. Injustice is injustice. The real issue is whether this is a case of sexual injustice at all. Since that is the issue, all your points about how heinous injustices against women are are granted. I completely agree. I just think we’re speaking about different points. And maybe you heard me speaking against yours. I wasn’t.
Posted by: barista | Jun 11, 2007 2:54:54 PM
Granted some women in some cultures prefer to have separation from men. However, to impose this segregation upon persons who do not share their religious beliefs is wrong.
Posted by: BOSTON STARBUCKS REBEL | Jun 12, 2007 7:25:42 AM
I just want to make one more comment. We are talking about drinking coffee because a few people mentioned bathrooms and changing rooms. I really do not see the point of being separated in order to drink coffee. However, I see some of your points after thinking about what is acceptable in Europe vs. the U.S. Topless on the beach is one thing I can think of. It has been approved for public beaches where I live, but I am still uncomfortable in participating and viewing. I think if I moved to Europe I would get used to it since it is just a different mindset. However, I just read a great article on how in U.S. certain things (for example fear-inducing news reporting and e-hoaxes) send messages to women on how they should behave. Some e-hoaxes I have received focus on women going out in public alone, at night and even on apparel. Gender behavior expectations have a place in American history and in general have been eased probably due to popular culture and women's rights movements. I point this out because when people say that middle eastern women want it that way, looking inward to our own inequities can help to see a different point of view. I understand that some women are more comfortable that way and it is the society in which they were raised. But let me ask women and men this: do you want to return to a time when women had to wear skirts only, and of a longer length, wear gloves and hats - all year round, could not be seen in public without an escort (late 1800's/early 1900s America) especially at night. A time when exercise for women was unacceptable or when women could not even own property. I think part of the problem is that there is not enough truthful education on the history of women, other cultures, etc. for people to want to make a serious change in the world towards equality and progress.
Posted by: Christine | Jun 12, 2007 9:11:25 AM
It's almost like blaming the woman for getting raped.
Posted by: | Jun 12, 2007 10:37:13 AM
People, how someone's society is run is none of our business. Americans have this ignorant/arrogant assumption that if someone's society differs from ours, then it's not right. If it works for the Saudis, then it works for them, no matter how backwards you may personally believe it to be. Starbucks is a company, and some of you need to realize that. Now, is the way the Saudis run their society right, or fair? In my opinion, it's not, but it's just that, my opinion. Starbucks has to be aware of other cultures, and operate within them.. Just like McDonalds and other multinational corporations, you have to be able to work within other societies, or you won't be successful. I bet you that Howie, and the rest of the brass probably doesn't like how Saudi society operates, but they realize that there is money to be made in that market. Money that can be used to further feminist causes all over the world, and even here, with the many anti discrimination things we sponsor. So, in other words, you can say that we are tolerating their societal norms, in order to further our own corporate goals. We had this discussion at work today, and my shift brought up a good point, one that brought home what I have said all along "You guys keep talking about the guiding principles, but you forget one of the most important ones, being a profitable company". You can't expect Starbucks to always take the moral high road, and still maintain its position in the business world. Sometimes, you have to make deals that you don't like, in order to further your goals.
Posted by: Broyling Water | Jun 12, 2007 8:25:21 PM
I really am surprised by how offended some people are. Boy, as Americans, we really do assume we know best, don't we? And obviously we've rid our society of all unfairness.
And I am a woman who supports the right of Saudis to determine their cultural standards and who respects those standards that harm no one. If the standard was "beat every woman who drinks coffee," of course I wouldn't support it. The concept of a "third place" being somewhere comfortable for people of sexes may, in Saudi Arabia, mean two separate "third places".
Many mosques are divided by gender. If you, as an American woman, went to a mosque and sat in the men's section, would you insist on remaining there?
Posted by: R | Jun 13, 2007 12:27:03 AM
For those people who say it is none of our business then you are forfeiting over to the side of ignorance. It is okay to boycott American companies over obscene commercials and other things, but it is not okay to be a little bothered that an American company is doing business in a place where some people are oppressed. How about if Starbucks set up shop in Darfur and ignored the genocide? If this were the 1930s would they set up shops in Germany?
Here are a couple of facts:
In Saudi Arabia this has been recently debated, but women are not allowed to drive, the court system and divorce laws are skewed in favor of men, the high unemployment women suffer, and whether desegregated workplaces violate Islamic law. Saudi women cannot travel, marry, or get identification papers without the permission of a male guardian. Does this apply to the 50 year-old widow?
Last year, the country was sickened by an incident in which 15 schoolgirls in Mecca perished in a fire. The religious police had forbidden them to leave their burning building because they were not wearing their abayas. The event triggered a national debate about the role of women.
This may be none of my business but I am person who believes in helping others have better lives. Maybe Bush's relationship with the Saudis have helped women as bad as our present in the middle east is for terrorism. It seems as more middle eastern countries expand rights for women it is having a domino effect for other women. Since having participated in this topic I have not visited a Starbucks since and have researched and enlightened myself on these women. By sitting on the side we validate the complacent view that most of the world has about Americans. Some say we are complacent and greedy or forceful in expanding our views and lifestyle. One can not be both, but I would not want to be complacent.
Posted by: | Jun 13, 2007 7:13:13 AM
Christine,
Honestly, I'm pretty socially liberal. I would, in my unrealistic fantasies, like the whole world to follow the sexually liberal way of life I'm most comfortable with. So I think we agree on a lot more than we disagree on. My only point was that many parts of the world have completely different ways of doing things that aren't necessarily wrong. And that we should think carefully before calling apparently strange and jarring customs wrong, just as we'd expect people from those parts of the world to think carefully before prejudging our jarringly different ways of life as wrong.
Starbucks Boston Rebel,
I don't think the reporter was excluded necessarily due to religious custom, but social ones. But in any case, whether the exclusion was culturally or particularly religiously motivated, if you can see the reporter as excluded because the coffee bar's owners imposed their beliefs on their visitor, you can also see that forcing the owners to accept the visitor imposes the visitor's beliefs on the owners and other customers.
Anonymous Jun 13, 2007 7:13:13 AM,
I think most people, including myself, agree that we shouldn't support injustice through business, if the business perpetuates the injustice more than it alleviates it. So this comment isn't really an argument against your general point. I agree.
I would just point out that not all business with oppressive states necessarily entrenches or creates new injustice there. It can also alleviate it. Business ties introduce relationships that open pathways for economic, political, and cultural leverage. It's not just Starbucks that, within limits, will adapt to Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia, within limits, will adapt to Starbucks.
I'm not prejudging the issue, saying that you're wrong and Starbucks is doing more harm than good there. I don't know. Maybe you're right. I don't have the means to determine that, really. So like I said, I'm not saying you're wrong. But I think we can look at the same point you raised in a more nuanced way. And that is: business with oppressive states doesn't exclusively raise or decrease injustice there, like an on/off switch. It's less a question of on/off, more a question of more/less.
If it's a question of more/less, then we shouldn't boycott such companies in an on/off matter; boycott on if they interact with oppressive countries, off if they don't. Because the fact is that business with oppressive states brings the free market to those countries. Though the free market is an ambiguous thing—sometimes with good effect, sometimes bad— in certain circumstances, the market can help things more than it hurts them. Insoafr as Starbucks’ Saudi presence represents that morally ambiguous market, it’s an open question whether Starbucks’ presence helps more or hurts more.
Posted by: barista | Jun 13, 2007 8:45:05 AM
Barista you make some good points about business, but Starbucks separating their store is following that nation's religious or social discrimination. One thing that bothers me and makes me laugh at the same time (which is rare) is the onslaught of huge advertisements in The New York Times magazine from Arab nations such as U.A.E. trying to encourage real estate, tourism, business and investment in their countries. Are these people kidding themselves? How would my reception be if I were a self-made female billionaire who wanted to invest in those countries? Those countries can build all the hotel palaces they want, but I would never travel there due to their policies on women. I have read some articles recently on the financial crisis in Saudi Arabia (due to huge credit card debt of the population and a growing division between the poor and wealthy) and they are actively soliciting investors. Yahoo or Google's (can't remember specifically - NY Times mag. had an article) business dealings with China is a another example of companies compromising freedoms and other issues are another example. Some of what is discussed is inevitable due to globalization. As business is so globalized we as consumers are going to become more aware of other nations.
Posted by: | Jun 13, 2007 9:03:12 AM
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is a monarchy and in the Basic Law of Government states that their constitution is the Muslim Koran, therefore the rules are Islamic in nature. The form of Islam associated mostly with the Saudi legal government are the Sunnis, which is none for its brutality.
As Ann Coulter says, liberals lack a basic working knowledge of two major religions: Christianity and Islam.
Posted by: BOSTON STARBUCKS REBEL | Jun 13, 2007 10:57:25 AM
I am surprised that you as a female reporter went over there without knowing their culture. Women are treated as dogs and always will be. Men come first in that country.
Posted by: julie | Jun 13, 2007 8:54:16 PM
I WISH there was a women-only section at my store. Slags.
Posted by: | Jun 14, 2007 8:41:39 AM
Oh to live in Saudi Arabia...
Posted by: Thomas | Jun 14, 2007 4:02:14 PM
Although I do believe that the segregation seen in this report is horrid, I can't see why Sbux shouldn't be there. If the underdeveloped world is to accept western culture, western culture must be present in said world. There is no better company to impose a sense of unity than Sbux. We will not change our values. They are too sincere. But, in time, we can encourage other cultures to embrace them.
Posted by: SBUXBEAST | Jun 15, 2007 9:04:30 PM
my previous comment is in response to BARISTA. the comment pushes the side of sbux's presence is positive.
Posted by: SBUXBEAST | Jun 15, 2007 9:10:11 PM
This whole thread is a monument to the problems you end up with when you try to play the game of multi-culturalism.
We must embrace all cultures. . .oh wait, but what about those who do something we don't agree with? Oh no! We've ended up just like those horrible moralists!
Haha, don't cut that branch too quickly, guys--you're the one sitting on it. ;-)
Posted by: ROFL | Jun 18, 2007 10:00:54 AM
I think it is kind of amusing, we as Americans are powerless in another culture. Of course she had to leave the men only section, we aren't talking about America sweety where you can do whatever the hell you want, wake up and smell the Latte`. When in another country, you must abide by that countries laws. Does this sound at all familiar. Let me re-iterate when in another country (USA for example) you must abide by our laws (mexico).
Posted by: Johnny Sac | Jun 18, 2007 1:07:15 PM
I think it's great that Starbucks has a presence there. Just because you don't agree with every aspect of a culture doesn't mean you shouldn't attempt to do business there.
Do I think women should be segregated? No. But c'mon, segregating women at Starbucks is NOT the same thing as female circumcision in Starbucks.
It's a little weird, but I wouldn't say it's quite to the point of being degrading. Now if they suddenly made every woman who went into Starbucks get circumcised, then I'd obviously draw the line there.
Posted by: dave | Jun 19, 2007 12:06:09 AM
i am a man from saudi and we have a place for women and men.
Men can not enter the women section and women can not enter the men section. it is as simple as that.and i do not see that some wrong with that and it is equal.
people we have problems that really deep like our bad legal system and the high unempolyment rate and these people who killing people in our country and outside our country and damaged our picture all over the world
and please, we are a new civilztion(fifty years ago we ride camels) and we need time to correct these wrong things in our socity and no one other than saudi can change this and freedom and democracy can not be inforced on people
so please do not judge people until you really the whole picture.
Posted by: Hisham from Saudi | Aug 12, 2007 12:10:14 PM
Very interesting conversation you've had going here. I read that article in the LA Times and was shocked enough to decide to boycott Starbucks until they treat men and women equally in all their stores. I feel very strongly that Starbucks should not treat women as second class citizens on foreign soil (in ways that, BTW, would be illegal in this country) simply because they can. As a number of posters have pointed out, the "we have to respect their culture..." argument is exactly what was used by businesses dealing in South Africa before the anti-apartheid movement took hold. It does not hold intellectual water. If you want to join the boycott, you're welcome to become part of our group at http://boycottstarbucks.ning.com
Posted by: anna | Aug 27, 2007 3:09:18 PM
This is called doing business.
Posted by: Anonymous | Sep 3, 2007 9:23:40 AM
Hurray, Anna, for your boycotting idea. I've been boycotting too. I have struggled too with the idea that perhaps I am somehow being a cultural chauvinist by being outraged when women in other countries are oppressed, but in the end I have to speak out when I see women treated like second class citizens.
I think it's ridiculous for people to assume that Saudi women actually want to be segregated from men, deprived of the right to drive or even leave the house alone, to be barred from many universities and almost entirely barred from the workforce, not to mention forced to wrap themselves in yards of stifling black fabric under brutally hot temperatures. Women may say they prefer it that way, but that is just because if they have ever tried to exercise personal choice, they have been treated so badly and disrespectfully by men and perhaps even the women in their families who are worried about what will happen to them if they don't stay covered, closeted and quiet. People are remarkably adaptable when they need to accept something in order to survive. But that does not mean they would choose to live in fear if they had another option. If a woman in a particular society actually feels more safe by drinking her coffee separately from men, that only shows that something is terribly wrong in the way men of that society treat women.
It's bad enough that our government maintains good relations with this gender-apartheid country for the sake of oil--do American companies have to go there just to sell coffee?? Starbucks must integrate or get out of Saudi Arabia!
Posted by: Beth | Sep 3, 2007 10:38:37 PM
For anyone trying to contact Starbucks about this, and not wanting an automated reply or form letter, here's an email address for an individual at Alshaya, Starbuck's foreign partners: nancy@alshaya.com I can't say I really got anywhere with her, but maybe someone else will have better luck, or be able to work their way to someone higher up the food chain. Keep up the boycott!
Posted by: Carl Lorenzen | Sep 4, 2007 12:04:09 AM
This is a really interesting and emotional issue.
I am a 40 yo white male and have lived all over, CA, MA, MO, France and now Buenos Aires and as much as I don't like this rule (I was really against it enough to read through all these) it IS true. When you work, live, own a business you need to conform to THEIR laws.
If a foreign company opened a store in the US they would be REQUIRED to obey our laws. How can this be different?
I feel that a lot of the things I have learned about some countries laws regarding women are horrific.
However, as we go point at everyone else, we MUST realize that outside force is not the best way and is only forcing YOUR opinions on others.
Until 50 years ago in the US there were separate drinking fountains, entrances for black people, And if a black man was "caught" with a white woman they had a VERY real chance of being killed.
RESPECT is the key word. If you respect others right to their own ideals.
On the other hand I do have to say that if the women anywhere feel oppressed and crazy things like this happen they WILL (and are) working to change things and I absolutely believe that backing them in every way is the right course of action. But to say Starbucks shouldn't obey the laws of the countries they do business is nuts.
Posted by: Daniel | Feb 6, 2008 10:41:16 PM
I work for starbucks in california, a high number leading store in the nation actually, and though personally i dont agree with the situation i have to respect it because i was not born there, i am not accustomed to that. As a woman i dont agree with the way we are treated there, but i respect cultures diversity and who's to say what we do here is right to them. Although Starbucks does abide by rules of discrimination and although it does not apply to their culture it applies to the company.
Posted by: Susie | Feb 26, 2008 10:31:43 PM
I work for starbucks in california, a high number leading store in the nation actually, and though personally i dont agree with the situation i have to respect it because i was not born there, i am not accustomed to that. As a woman i dont agree with the way we are treated there, but i respect cultures diversity and who's to say what we do here is right to them. Although Starbucks does abide by rules of discrimination and although it does not apply to their culture it applies to the company.
Posted by: Susie | Feb 26, 2008 10:34:06 PM
