"The multinational company acquiesces in and enforces the oppression and segregation of women. Man, it's a depressing story," Andrew writes in a post entitled "The Saudi Starbucks."
The story Andrew refers to is not about Starbucks, however, but Saudi Arabia. It's entitled "In Saudi Arabia, a view from behind the veil." No doubt, among all the U.S. companies doing business in Saudi Arabia, Starbucks is not unique in complying with the harsh, backward laws of that country.
The story's author, L.A. Times reporter Megan K. Stack, writes:
I spent my days in Saudi Arabia struggling unhappily between a lifetime of being taught to respect foreign cultures and the realization that this culture judged me a lesser being. I tried to draw parallels: If I went to South Africa during apartheid, would I feel compelled to be polite? . . .The rules are different here. The same U.S. government that heightened public outrage against the Taliban by decrying the mistreatment of Afghan women prizes the oil-slicked Saudi friendship and even offers wan praise for Saudi elections in which women are banned from voting. All U.S. fast-food franchises operating here, not just Starbucks, make women stand in separate lines. U.S.-owned hotels don't let women check in without a letter from a company vouching for her ability to pay; women checking into hotels alone have long been regarded as prostitutes. . . . [Emphasis mine.]
Andrew doesn't like Starbucks because it's progressive. It doesn't conform to his "conservative" notion of what the U.S. should be about (he's from Margaret Thatcher's England, and stuck there in time).
Andrew Sullivan and Saudi Arabia are backwards, not Starbucks (or other U.S. companies). On the basis of the story Andrew links to, he should be dumping on the Bush Administration for embracing Saudi Arabia the way it does. Instead, he dumps on an American company that has a conscience. Maybe he should get with the program.
No comments:
Post a Comment