Objectifying Java Divas

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by TNT666 on December 31, 2009 at 3:55am

Wow, I was prepared to see girls looking like Hooters or something, but these girls look straight up like hoes. That is soooooo sad.

I am not against scantily clad women, but when it's your personal choice it's different from when it's from lack of options in life (whether they be financial or educational).

I do feel there are many women for whom objectifying their body may be their ticket out of their crummy life, but that's NOT personal choice, that's economic hardship, and people should not be reduced to such behaviour.

I'm not sure the word «objectified» would be my choice of words. Unfortunately this word has come to be the the hatchet word for right-wing politicians who are working against civil rights and decent living standards. They use it to hammer in their anti-victim attitude.

I'd rather use the term lack of self-esteem and pride. As the Cesar Millan says, the owners of the shop need training, but these girls need rehabilitation!

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Trance Gemini on December 31, 2009 at 6:50am

Good questions Christina.

I'm just going to sit back and read the comments for a while before I respond.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by The Nerd on December 31, 2009 at 10:41am

From the website: Feel free buy your favorite Diva an outfit to wear…

Um, ew. I mean, it's female owned and operated, but I... really don't know what to say. So I'm going to define "objectification" while I compile my thoughts.

"Objectification" literally means to treat a person as an object (or tool) for personal use. And that's exactly what's going on here. Their bodies are advertised as being part of the customer's experience.

Do they have the right to sell their own bodies? Yes. And if we didn't live in a patriarchy, I'd say "great! more power to them!" And part of me does, actually.

But the other part of me says "just what we need, more women reinforcing the idea the female bodies are a commodity". Because seriously, if they're being empowered, where are the other genders in this situation? I don't see any men on display. I don't see any genderqueer people here showing off their bodies as well.

And so while I think it's great that these women have such an entrepreneurial spirit, I have to shake my head at such an obvious symptom of the flaws in our society at large.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Double Standards??? on December 31, 2009 at 12:20pm

"But the other part of me says "just what we need, more women reinforcing the idea the female bodies are a commodity". Because seriously, if they're being empowered, where are the other genders in this situation? I don't see any men on display. I don't see any genderqueer people here showing off their bodies as well."

Nerd, I have a question for you. If a woman from an affleunt background specifically looked for and found a job as a cocktail waitress by personal choice because she thought that being a "tease" to male customers would make her feel empowered, do you as a feminist have a problem with this and do you think that is objectification?

I ask this question because I personal know a woman who is a self-described feminist, a trust fund baby, Ivy League educated, and has a degree in Women's Studies who did exactly what I described above. The only thing she got out of this attempt at empowerment was being sexually harrassed and crying at work everyday to the point where she finally quit her job.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by The Nerd on December 31, 2009 at 12:42pm

Objectification is independent of personal reflection. In other words, no matter how positively or negatively she feels about it, that won't change whether or not she's being treated as an object. That doesn't mean that she can't make the choice to work there. After all, a job is a job. If she likes it, good for her! If not, she can leave, or apply for protection under any applicable laws.

I don't know if people really understand "empowerment". In your example, she was NOT empowered. She was working for someone else and completely at the mercy of other people's kindness or lack thereof. If someone disrespected her, she could either quit her job (not a good option in a tough economy), complain to management and hope they help her out, or just take the shit and try to please the customer anyway. The woman who owns Java Divas, on the other hand, IS empowered. She started her business, owns it, runs it, and can set the rules as she sees fit. If someone disrespects her, she has the power to do what makes her feel best - that may be trying to please the customer, or it may be kicking them out of her store, but she's the one who ultimately gets to make that decision.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Double Standards??? on December 31, 2009 at 1:16pm

I know the owner is a woman, but I think she is helping contribute to the commodification of womens bodies with a menu that list drink sizes as A-cup, B-cup, C-cup, D-cup and having her employees dress like hookers. The owners goal probably is not to, for lack of a better way of putting it, advance the feminism cause, her goal is to make money.

Personally I think Java Divas is worse than Hooters because the owner is a woman who exploits the commodification of womens bodies to sell her product and Hooters was started by six businessmen, although one of the Given names of the founders could be male or female. None of the Divas is, pardon the expression, a "fat chick."

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by The Nerd on December 31, 2009 at 1:32pm

The owners goal probably is not to, for lack of a better way of putting it, advance the feminism cause, her goal is to make money.

I agree with this. It does get confusing because part of "the feminism cause" is to encourage people to respect women in the business world. But it's also to encourage people to stop hypersexualizing female bodies. So she's taking one step forward and one step backward, so to speak.

Now, if I were to reform her idea, I'd keep the cute daily uniform themes (such as Western Wednesdays), but I'd tone down the sexiness and focus on the playfulness. I'd also hire more than just generically attractive females. There are a lot of great things she can do to keep her business fresh and famous without sacrificing feminist ideals in the process.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Double Standards??? on December 31, 2009 at 1:49pm

[I could not edit and add this to my previous post on time] What affect does using womens bodies as a commodity have on mens attitudes towards women and what affect does it have on women who do not look like barbie dolls?

I think Java Divas is the equivalent of a black person starting their own business, cafe/restaurant, and having their baristas/waiters/waitresses do a big song and dance for their customers.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by The Nerd on December 31, 2009 at 1:57pm

I think Java Divas is the equivalent of a black person starting their own business, cafe/restaurant, and having their baristas/waiters/waitresses do a big song and dance for their customers.

Yeah, if the staff was all black, I could see that being a major problem.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Double Standards??? on December 31, 2009 at 2:35pm

That's what I meant.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Mary Crook on December 31, 2009 at 10:20pm

I think it's a pathetic attempt to sell what is probably crappy coffee. I hate the old "sex sells" excuse for why women have to be objectified to sell anything and everything.

I do not believe for one second that someone goes to the store, looks at all of the items in the beer section for example... and then recalls seeing the commercial where the chick has the real big boobs... and then chooses that beer. It's bull shit. We've been conditioned to believe that garbage and until we fight against it, they're going to keep it up.

In my opinion, the owner of this place is no better than a pimp.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Double Standards??? on December 31, 2009 at 10:45pm

In my opinion, the owner of this place is no better than a pimp.
+2

▶ Reply to This

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• …
• 11
• Next ›
• Page