Gender politics before 9AM

Christian groups are calling for a boycott of Starbucks in protest of a limited-edition mermaid logo based off medieval bestiaries they find sexually suggestive.

However, they’re missing the opportunity to protest genuine tastelessness. What Hooters did for fried food, a wave of Seattle entrepreneurs now tries on coffee.

It’s hard to figure out what I think about this. Though I find myself an Epicurean bachelor, I’m still somewhat sympathetic to “sex-positive” strains of feminism (as I would guess most male pro-feminists are, skewed in that direction by masculine perspectives of sexuality). I believe self-knowledge of desire and motivations—including those pertaining to one’s sexuality—provide the only means to self-esteem and actualization.

            That being said, I see nothing in this business model advancing individual autonomy. The female form is reduced to a commercial vehicle, so I can’t support it. However, I wouldn’t support any sort of legislation aimed at shutting them down. It would seem rather arbitrary—appearing in public in swimwear is legal, and serving coffee is legal; why not both at the same time?

Once the novelty wears off, business will probably lag, and more conventional uniforms will be reinstated to draw back a wider customer base. If it doesn’t wear off, neighborhoods hosting such establishments will see coffee-sale shifts disproportionately favoring the “Grinning Douchebags Who Don’t Mind Being Seen Buying Coffee While Ogling Scantily-Clad Women” demographic. Less cynical shops may suffer…and we’re one step closer to Idiocracy.