Mike Fancher's weekly column in yesterday's Seattle Times covered the outrage of some locals over a front page story discussing less-than-warmly dressed baristas at a smattering of local coffee stands. Judging from Fancher's column, a not insignificant chunk of the Times' readership was perturbed by the coverage (or lack thereof).
Personally, I don't get it. The online pictures that accompanied the print story are not gratuitous (the 1st picture was on the front page, the 2nd on the inside of the main section). One could see as much flesh, if not more, from photos of the recently successful UW women's volleyball team in modern uniforms or from fashion shots of the current parade of Hollywood award shows. You can even see more from the lingerie models that regularly grace the inside pages of the Times' main section.
It seems the outrage in this case is because of the more direct sexual connotation. Furthermore, it seems the nannyism we periodically rail about at this site has a constituency. I thought the article presented both sides of the story and the pictures themselves were not more sexual than any of a number of other images one can regularly find in various sections of the newspaper.
Your thoughts?
Posted by Eric Earling at January 29, 2007 08:18 AM | Email ThisYou can see worse than this at a 15 minute stint at the mall. I really don't see what all the commotion is about.
Posted by: chris on January 29, 2007 08:36 AMA few years ago the Times dared publish a photo of a mother and her children rollerblading without wearing helmets, prompting this response:
"Protective gear is
a necessity, not just a nice thing to do
Editor, The Times:
The Times photo of Rollerblading moms, a child and kids in strollers was a depressing sight.
The image was one of cheerfulness, fun and good health. Sadly, not one of them was wearing a helmet, wrist guards or knee or elbow pads.
The way to really have fun is to also be safe. Whether it's Rollerblades, bikes, skateboards, skis or scooters, helmets and other protective gear are a need to do, not a nice to do.
Think safety, moms! Your next time out will be even better."
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 29, 2007 09:00 AMIt's not so much what you do, as why you do it that gets the panties in a wad....
Posted by: H Moul on January 29, 2007 09:10 AMI don't care for the image that sets for young girls, but that it is *gasp* a parent's job to re-enforce positive images for their children.
I can't believe that some of these girls were in high school and their parents are OK with them working in that environment (actually, I can believe that).
Bottom-line is that if you don't like it, don't go. If you don't want to dress like that at work, find one of the 700 other coffee stands to work at.
Posted by: eric on January 29, 2007 09:10 AMAnd who exactly reads the Times except liberals and the paper's critics? If the paper's liberal readership was equally offended by the lies and distortion the paper regularly prints, then that would be news. Unfortunately, though, the liberal readership accepts what the paper prints because they want it to be true. Can't let the facts or reality get in the way of a good old Bush-bashing. Bush lied, Americans responsible for hundreds of thousands of dead, no threat by terrorists to America, yada, yada, yada.
Hillary will save the planet, and Democrats have real ideas. Yeah, now that's funny!
Posted by: MJC on January 29, 2007 09:22 AMHow about the public beaches in Hawaii, where some young ladies seem to compete to see whose bikini can win the race for the the minimum number of square inches ??
How about all the college and pro-sports cheeleading teams ??.. I doubt that a demonstated proficiency in calculus and differential equations is one of the ''standards'' for making the team.
Give me a break:
As long as they meet the minimum legal standard for being ''dressed'', capitalism provides the obvious solution for everybody in this case:
If you don't like the attire of the person serving your coffee, GO TO ANOTHER COFFEE STAND.
I'm left with just ONE question:
Just how far is the socialist nanny-state gonna go in WA ??
Which is a good thing when you think about it.
Posted by: H Moul on January 29, 2007 09:51 AMPaynter has a column advocating that grocery stores quit selling cig's. And within her column she points out that the same stores should be allowed to sale hard liquer.
Nanny State at it's best. I think I will look for real estate in Idaho.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/paynter/301393_paynt29.html
Posted by: Chris on January 29, 2007 09:56 AMThe left constantly amazes me with its prudishness and lack of liberal ideals. What ever happened to its 70's mantra of "do your own thing"? I guess that only counts when the "thing" is politically correct from their selective leftist perspective.
Make no mistake - there is nothing liberal about the left's agenda. There is no choice - its their way only. All other views and ideas are to be suppressed, either directly or more subtly (ask Ted Turner about subtle).
No, it's only OK for liberals.
It's considered the height of political incorrectness to complain about we we might consider lude, public behavior at, say, the gay pride parade.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 29, 2007 10:18 AMThe left will freak out about this being denigrating to woman, and so will the extreme right, but as usual, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
More power to these businesses that have found a good way to differentiate their products. I like value add too. I never go to Starbucks because to me, it's insane to pay $2 for something that is maybe worth .50 cents. You get all this hype about how they are oh so careful about roasting the beans, etc. Totally marketing. There's very little consistency to a cup of coffee anywhere I have been. Sometimes it's great, others, not so great. And when it's dressed up with a lot of sugar and milk, etc. it's hard to even tell.
At least at these scantily clad coffee places, there's something more than just a typical cup of coffee.
At least at these scantily clad coffee places, there's something more than just a typical cup of coffee.
Yeah, I heard they were giving away free peanuts.
BUT, wait till you see the pregnant ones, whose large abdomen filled with baby is bared for all to see. Of course she is still a size 3 in all places but the tummy, but just can't seem shake the "short shirts & rolled down hip huggers" habit, and buy maternity clothes.
Posted by: Chris on January 29, 2007 11:00 AMwhat offends me the most is the Times' perpetual unbalance to the left, with few/no articles on everyday heroes who pay bills, stay married and raise decent families--police & military especially included. i know--my choice to not read it.
Times is too full of losers and 'poor me' people who constantly make bad choices. too p.c. to lay blame on anybody/anything. the days of the tough, moxie journalist/investigation are long gone. now, fluff & smiles for criminals & politicians alike. (except conservative ideas)
left double standard--ever catch a cover of Comsopolitan lately? and the Times is still fawning over a silly (soon to be bum-)art park? in a nutshell--out of touch.
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on January 29, 2007 11:18 AM
NO - I was not offended at all by the photos. I was more offended by the whole prissy, prudish tone of the article. I was shocked to see Best Friends espresso in Kenmore mentioned in the article. I walk by that stand M-F 2X a day. I noticed the girls were in tank tops and shorts..summer wear IMHO. No big deal. I was really disappointed by the comments of the owners of nearby Chateau Chadeu (?????) - the ones that stated the Best Friends baristas were going to bring down civilization as we know it, and that Kenmore is a "family place"? That must be why there are so many slack-jawed teenagers in that neighborhood, which is the biggest breeding ground for the next generation of burger flippers I've seen in King County!
Posted by: ALP on January 29, 2007 12:17 PMI'm there!!!
Posted by: ALP on January 29, 2007 12:22 PM
Absolutely! there shold have been a 20-page prictorial, cluminating in total frontal you-know-what!!
Posted by: Libertarian on January 29, 2007 12:49 PMSo if we agree this is not such a big deal, what is your point? What are you promoting? What is your agenda, if that is not too loaded a term?
Posted by: huckleberry on January 29, 2007 12:51 PMSince you asked: Are Americans loose and immoral? No, I do not think so. I am not religious, and tend to balk at the word "moral" (implying system with roots in revealed religion) as opposed to "ethical". Materialistic and shallow? Yes, I do think we are that.
Huckleberry, you appear too literate for my definition of a slack jaw, IMHO.
Posted by: ALP on January 29, 2007 01:06 PMThat being said, there is something really strange about a city that condones naked bike riders (now that's disgusting!), public breast feeding, gangsta slut culture or full term abortion and then goes apoplectic at a barista-in-a-box wearing shorts and a boustia.
The only reason this is frowned upon is because it is linked to a business. This area (what am I talking about, this country) hates business. The Democrats and MSM have beat the anti-business drum for so long the hate is now automatic.
And you think I'm joking.
Posted by: G Jiggy on January 29, 2007 01:13 PMTrue that! Best Friends in Kenmore has been much busier since the article.
I think there is plenty of room in the coffee market for espresso stands such as: "Puritan Percolator" (baristas in black/white pilgrim outfit), "Abstinence Away" (baristas medically examined for proof of virginity), "Cover Up Coffee" (baristas with burkas) and "Central No-Perk" (baristas over 60).
Posted by: ALP on January 29, 2007 01:25 PMEvery time you step foot into a bar you expect to see a young attractive fawn for a bartender. We need not speak of her atire for we know there is little of it. Is this immoral, unethical, or only expected.
As with any other private business if you do not like what they are selling you go somewhere else.
Let us vertically intergrate, the solitication of sin- The bar owner opens 5 coffee shops under the same name as the bar. Puts young seductively dressed women in their coffee shops, Hires those same women to work the bar, (Now she can be considered full time so we can give her benifits to make the libs happy).
Next we use the marketing (sex appeal) ability of these young women to drive business to our bar. The sin for the morning drives the sin at night.
The free enterprise system, what a great idea.
These women choose to work these stands for one reason, the extra attention is worth the extra income.
Thought- How long do we give it until the first sexual harrasment case is brought up against a customer from one of these stands?
Yes, that is what this is all about. If the girls were self-actualizing, there would be no problem. But making money for their bosses and tips for themselves, well that definitely taints the whole affair.
ALP @ 36: Puritan Percolator... gotta love that!
ALP @ 33: Your distinction between ethics and morals intrigues me. You seem to be saying that it is OK to be ethical, as long as those ethics are not inspired by religious imperatives. Why bother with ethics at all if not as a duty to God? What are your motives for behaving ethically? And how do your ethics differ from those of a person who acknowledges the underlying morality behind their ethics?
To all, let us tip a cup o' joe to the shallow and material creatures we all aspire to become!
Posted by: huckleberry on January 29, 2007 01:42 PMNot really interested in a long drawn out debate on ethics/morality...you can read this article for info on how I think:
http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1580394,00.html
In short, the last sentence sums it up for me best: "I would argue that nothing gives life more purpose than the realization that every moment of consciousness is a precious and fragile gift."
Each moment alive is valuable, and should be lived to the highest of ethical standards, which I take from both religious (Jesus knew a thing or two, as did Buddha) and secular traditions.
No offense, but I really leave people to their own choices in regards to this matter, hence I generally don't debate belief systems - but will answer limited questions when asked. Been there, done that dozens of time.
I would argue that nothing gives life more purpose than the realization that every moment of consciousness is a precious and fragile gift."
But to bring the discussion closer to the original topic, is there enough in common between your ethics and mine to support the assertion that social pressure should cause baristas to dress modestly, or, everyone must silently accept baristas dressing as sluttily as they please?
I think the differences in our ethical systems will always keep us from agreement.
Posted by: huckleberry on January 29, 2007 02:47 PMBecause the bottom line is, the left does not want freedom, they want control.
Posted by: Jeff B. on January 29, 2007 02:56 PMThank you for understanding. May I say you might be overthinking the issue a bit? We don't necessarily have to wander into ethics and morality/religion, as we already have laws on the books regulating "decency" in the public square. As long as espresso stands are in compliance with the law, there is no legal issue here - just each individual's personal moral/ethical issues (or "methical"!!!) for what kind of businesses they want to give their money to.
FYI - in the end, I am waaaay to cheap to frequent an espresso stand staffed by a hunk of man meat. I buy beans and grind them at work. Plus, the fact that I hardly drive doesn't help either!
Posted by: ALP on January 29, 2007 03:22 PMOn the other hand I was highly offended by yesterday's (28-Jan) front page spread on the ant-war anti-Bush rally held Saturday in DC. I was highly offended by a front page picture of Hanoi Jane.
I was also highly offended by the LACK OF COVERAGE of a Pro Life rally the week before, even though tens of thousands peacefully rallied (without defacing the Capitol building). And I am highly offended that today's Seattle Times has NO MENTION of John Kerry's latest anti-USA rants given to our enemies. Why is it not news when a well known Senator attends an anti-American conference, and calls the United States an "international pariah" while hugging the enemy (Khatami)?
I was offended by Saturday's front page story about how 4 of our troops were murdered. The story was not about the horrific deeds of murderers, but rather it was a hatchet piece about how the Army did not give reporters all the factual details until 5 days later.
So, bring on more baristas!
Posted by: Seabecker on January 29, 2007 03:30 PMSo if women start breast-feeding for money that's not OK then? There might be an angle in there somewhere for the folks at Deja Vu (et al.).
NICE POST !!!
Posted by: Chris on January 29, 2007 04:23 PMWe should all know, being bright folks, that the women in Seattle are supposed to only be allowed the freedoms that the feminasties decide from day to day they should have.
Posted by: Dragonfly on January 29, 2007 05:38 PMI wouldn't include public breastfeeding in that category. While it may be true, that some breastfeeding women tend to have no regard for how much of their breast is showing, most mothers do so modestly. I find it very ironic that the same people who have no problem with scantily clad women (using their sex appeal to sell coffee), are outraged over a glimpse of a woman's breast while feeding her infant!
And just because a market demands or condones something, doesn't make it morally right, as it seems "G Jiggy" (#34 is suggesting). On the other hand, when the market complains about what's in their local newspaper, isn't that the market speaking out about what they find unacceptable? And as Huckleberry pointed out before, nobody's calling for any legislation about this.
Posted by: Michelle on January 29, 2007 06:00 PMALP @ 45: You are simply too charming for me to keep railing at you on what seems to be a fairly insignificant topic. Thanks for the dialog. Let's do it again when the stakes are higher?
Posted by: huckleberry on January 29, 2007 06:50 PM''Because the bottom line is, the left does not want freedom, they want control.''
Bingo.
Posted by: Methow Ken on January 29, 2007 07:19 PMThank you for your kinds words and your civility! Folks like you that can have a reasonable discussion with someone with a different POV are few and far between these days...sadly.
Posted by: ALP on January 30, 2007 09:38 AMLet me be clear, America is not divided between religions, it is divided into those who believe religion is a good thing and those who believe religion is a bad thing. The religious against the irreligious. The Jacobins live.
Posted by: huckleberry on January 30, 2007 09:58 AMin Seattle City Council style, my proposed legislative bill reinstates the "4 foot rule" like strip joints--you pay & get your coffee/latte with a big retractible pole or tray.
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on January 30, 2007 10:34 AMMy 2 cents. As a liberal, female. Not only was I not offended, by the story, I applaud the gals who are making the cash off the guys who so willingly hand it over. suckas. But really, teal? Looks like something you'd pick up at a Castle superstore. ick. Nice cleavage though.
So there, enough with the liberal bashing. Let's mark prudishness also as a quality that can cross party lines. And not all of THEM liberals speak for all of US. thank you and good night.
