-
From Russia with lust
Hot and bothered about its dwindling population, a Russian region recently gave women a half-day off work for patriotic sex; liaisons ending in perfectly timed babies may be rewarded with a brand new SUV. We'd make some privileged snark about overpopulation and emissions, but time off for getting laid? We're sold.
Photo: iStockphoto
-
Yo' mammoth
We have a bone to pick with you, global warming -- why do you keep giving us shit?
Photo: REUTERS / Sergei Karpukhin
-
Flights of fancy
Aiming to reduce carbon emissions, this flight-sharing club will allow celebs to tag-team their private jets. Now if only they could come up with a way to put hundreds of people going to the same destination on one plane ... oh, wait.
Photo: iStockphoto
-
Tube: tops
Go ahead and do your research, scientists, but the benefits of a 12-inch miracle tube seem pretty obvious to us.
Photo: iStockphoto
-
Clothesless
What this PETA ad teaches us: She's hot 'cause she's veg. You ain't 'cause you not. Veg is why, veg is why, veg is why she's hot.
Photo: Leon Bennett / WireImage
Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change
Hollywood’s next green generation
Change the world by changing your underpants, and more
Comments
View as Flat
BruceGFriedrich Posted 12:50 am
21 Sep 2007
Permalink
amc89 Posted 5:45 am
21 Sep 2007
Regarding #5, I'm for the pro-veg message, but I'm a little annoyed when women are objectified to spread a message.
Permalink
marymartinphd Posted 7:03 am
21 Sep 2007
Permalink
Ellie Posted 11:51 am
21 Sep 2007
Permalink
TwinsFanatic Posted 12:58 pm
21 Sep 2007
Can someone who thinks this is sexist spell out how and why? How does this exploit Alicia Silverstone (or anyone)?
Is any nudity sexist, by definition (if it's a woman)?
It seems to me that the two Grist editors that posted the item, both female, didn't think it was sexist. I assume they're both feminists.
I think calling Alicia Silverstone sexist requires more explanation.
Permalink
Survival Posted 4:57 pm
21 Sep 2007
Do you think any piece of art with a naked woman is inherently sexist? Where's the context?
Permalink
Ellie Posted 10:21 pm
21 Sep 2007
Permalink
Wolfy Posted 10:31 pm
21 Sep 2007
I eat small amounts of meat occasionally - and Wolfy is a 305 lb, 6 foot tall tank. If I can thrive on an almost 100% vegetarian diet, anyone can. I think PETA's message is a good one. They have chosen an inspiring media to do so (rock on, Alicia); it sure beats their old method of getting their message across by blowing up animal testing labs (and lab workers).
Permalink
TwinsFanatic Posted 11:05 pm
21 Sep 2007
How does it do that, though?
Personally, I'd give Alicia Silverstone the benefit of the doubt on this: I've seen her interviewed on "The View" and other talk shows, and she seems savvy, smart, thoughtful, and committed to making the world a kinder place--including by promoting veganism.
So if someone is going to call her sexist, I think they should spell that out a bit more. I just can't imagine Alicia doing something SHE saw as sexist, so if she is missing something...
Again, is any female nudity sexist? That is the only standard by which this advert could be seen as sexist, it seems to me.
But I may not be seeing this correctly. I do see myself as a feminist, and I think feminists can't just accuse people of Alicia of sexism without explaining.
I did check out the link at http://www.PETA.org; Alicia's message about the advert seems totally value-focused.
Permalink
ruxandra Posted 5:23 am
22 Sep 2007
in all seriousness, the only "message" of that ad, politically speaking, is that in the pursuit of promoting vegetarianism/veganism/animal rights and encouraging people to stop objectifying animals, it's perfectly ok to objectify women as much as possible! (and, sure, that alicia silverstone is a sexy celebrity. go peta!) it's really very simple - and it's an ooold schtick of peta's: use women's bodies as they're always used by the media for their own ends, and you'll get people's attention. which is all that matters. but the problem is that peta should choose such a tactic, not that alicia s. got roped into it.
no, not all nudity is sexist... sometimes one is nude for good reason. but a whole lot of female nudity is used to reinforce the sexist status quo, where women's bodies are objectified and commodified, and women are systematically relegated to being the "sex class." just like animals are, for the majority, the "food class." it's all about exploitation, and enforcing and profiting from the status quo in some way.
and peta does this reinforcing of the status quo as far as women's objectification very consciously. they've been approached plenty of times, criticized for their campaigns like "i'd rather go naked than wear fur", "fur trim. unattractive", "show me your udders!", "state of the union undress", and so on, and so forth... but they've said repeatedly that they don't care, and they don't see the problem, and any publicity is good publicity/the ends justify the means.
all i can say is, read those couple of links at least, check out this page for a gallery of past such ads from peta and also peta: where only women are treated like meat... and look at all those images together and try to NOT see all of it as sexist and exploitative and the opposite of promoting respect for the dignity and freedom from oppression of all beings, and let's imagine what the "ends" really are in this case...
Permalink
ruxandra Posted 6:03 am
22 Sep 2007
and so far you've been the only person to call alicia sexist. nobody else did. i wanted to stress that the point is not that she's being sexist by "stripping for animals" - rather, the fact that peta's using those kind of images/tactics in their campaigns is sexist and is feeding and supporting mainstream sexism.
Permalink
Ellie Posted 6:03 am
22 Sep 2007
I don't think the ad will prompt men to give up meat. It may reassure young women they can be vegetarian and sexy, but I think that's a very egotistical approach to animal rights-- one in which the animals are very secondary.
Giving up meat and other animal products should be based on an ethic, not how sexy it can be.
Permalink
ruxandra Posted 6:26 am
22 Sep 2007
Permalink
BruceGFriedrich Posted 7:03 am
22 Sep 2007
I have heard it said that feminism is not what you say, it's how you actually run your organization. One would be hard pressed to find more women in positions of power than we've got at PETA. Of PETA's highest positions and board, there are four women, three gay men, and no straight men.
Obviously there is a lot of disagreement among feminists re: what is exploitation and objectification. I have asked that the director of our correspondance department (a woman) post our official response, which addresses the accusations more specifically.
Clearly, Alicia didn't see this as exploiting or objectifying her. She is a strong, articulate, and compassionate woman. And she did this because she cares (none of PETA's celebrity adverts involved any compensation--the celebrities volunteer because they care about the issue).
Permalink
BruceGFriedrich Posted 7:19 am
22 Sep 2007
http://youtube.com/watch?v=CeaP05YM2io
Permalink
ruxandra Posted 7:24 am
22 Sep 2007
the mere fact that there are women in position of power somewhere doesn't necessarily mean anything. margaret thatcher didn't advance the feminist cause any, i'm pretty sure. actually, "feminism" is perhaps nothing so much as what you DO, and if part of what you do is to systematically objectify women because it just "appeals to the public" (really, it does, who knew?!), then your feminism is a bit... absent.
it's not so "obvious" that "there is a lot of disagreement among feminists re: what is exploitation and objectification" at all. peta thinks so - but SO MANY animal rights activists i know who also do feminist and anti-sexist activism are put off by peta's campaigns involving women and women's bodies being commodified and "sold" - obviously that means something. anyway i'd be pretty surprised if the official response acknowledged this in any way... 'cause you all haven't bothered to in the past (my own letter from about 7 years ago got an answer along the lines of - "we don't think those ads are sexist, but anyway we like to use shock tactics and we find them hugely effective, so if it appeals to the public we're going ahead, and that's it"). but i'd love to be surprised.
Permalink
ruxandra Posted 7:35 am
22 Sep 2007
Permalink
BruceGFriedrich Posted 8:18 am
22 Sep 2007
I wasn't trying to imply that because it's run by women, it's automatically feminist. I just re-read my email and I think I was clear that they are feminists who disagree with your analysis. i.e., Ingrid and the others at the healm are strong women who are feminists, and who disagree with you. I'd guess that Maggie was a strong woman who is not a feminist (like Phyllis Schlafly and Ann Coulter).
In any event, you clearly disagree; can you explain when nudity is okay and when it's not? Is nudity in art okay? You refer to the body type, but I assume you're not suggesting that nudity is okay or not based on body type.
I posted the Jimmy Kimmel piece because I thought it was funny. You don't think so?
I don't do much Blog posting, so I'm not clear on the etiquette. This seems like you and I are having a conversation; it seems odd to me to have that conversation here. Feel free to email me off the Blog, at BruceF(at)peta.org.
BTW, my mother was a charter subscriber to Ms. Magazine (literally) and a strong feminist for more than forty years; she didn't find these campaigns, where men and women volunteer their time and get naked to make a point, to be exploitative or sexist. She found the campaigns to be feminist in nature, because they were done by strong women using their sexuality for a cause they believe in.
I know you don't agree and I am aware of the response to this (often expressed as though disagreement is insane betrayal), but my mom was a feminist artist who dealt with serious sexism for decades, and that was her take on it.
To see some of her progressive and feminist art, check out http://www.ThistlewoodPress.com.
Respectfully,
Bruce
Permalink
BruceGFriedrich Posted 8:25 am
22 Sep 2007
Men and Women--we take anyone. We've had David Cross and Dennis Rodman, and women of varying body types (e.g., Kathy Najimi)--anyone who wants to get naked for animal rights. Similarly with our demonstrations--we take anyone who wants to get naked rather than wearing fur, etc.
We noted a lot of people getting naked for peace in recent years (and some getting naked to protest clothing).
I admit that it self-selects, but I've personally gone naked repeatedly, including completely naked at Buckingham Palace:
http://www.ananova.com/images/news/bush_streakerPA350x473 ...
Permalink
Greta Posted 8:38 am
22 Sep 2007
Permalink
Greta Posted 8:47 am
22 Sep 2007
Fred Flinstone, party of one, your table is ready.
Permalink
ruxandra Posted 9:28 am
22 Sep 2007
anyway, your mom's art is amazing. and i assume she was supportive of something like this, perhaps [to give another example, i've personally seen some naked blocs at protests, with both guys and girls removing all clothing, not just "threatening" items, in order to march and prove a point... and while i think there's still problems with that, 'cause people are going to react differently to a topless woman and a topless guy... and threats of violence to the two are different... that's another discussion] - but with regards to something like this?? i really really doubt it! again, the whole point of this discussion is how much exploitation of sexist cultural givens is involved, what does this campaign that's supposedly about "justice" reference, what does it try to evoke? and what kind of images are being promoted? (if it tries to evoke mainstream porn and all of its attitudes towards women, that's not "feminist"... if it promotes airbrushed, unrealistic images of women, that's not feminist... if it reduces women to their nakedness, in a context where nakedness has no relevance, that's not feminist.) it's the same with art. of course there can be nude human forms in art; whether it's sexist or not depends on... whether it's sexist or not.
also, we're not really talking about actions with "regular people" here (though we can talk about that too). we're talking about these ads with celebrities that peta's campaigns are based on, which peta spends huge amounts of money on (even if the models are not compensated), and which is what the majority of the public sees. the "we take everyone" is a major exaggeration, isn't it? i'd say that there are exceptions that prove the rule, really... and anyway the ads being what they are there's the underlying fact that this person is naked either to appeal to the public as a sexual object - in a way we all know and love - or as a "quirky" take on that tradition... but peta is relying on that tradition anyway.
ps: no, i didn't find the jimmy kimmel spoof funny in the least. and he is an avowed misogynist.
Permalink
Karen Lee Orr Posted 9:49 am
22 Sep 2007
See the Los Angeles Times story and PETA ad here: http://tinyurl.com/2yt4l5
You can also see the ad at the PETA website: http://www.peta.org/feat/alicia_psa/index.asp.
The page includes testimonial from Alicia about her love of animals and the health benefits of her vegan diet.
I learned about this from Dawnwatch, an animal advocacy media watch that looks at animal issues in the media and facilitates one-click responses to the relevant media outlets. You can learn more about it, and sign up for alerts at http://www.DawnWatch.com.
Permalink
yona Posted 10:20 am
22 Sep 2007
Permalink
Wolfy Posted 10:44 am
22 Sep 2007
Perhaps the NRA could take a lesson from this; forget crusty old Charlton Hesston and crazy Ted Nugent - get some sexy models sporting some major firepower! Just kidding; the NRA is doing very well this administration by spreading fear and hate. Get a machinegun for granny before Saddam gets granny!
Maybe I will pose for the next PETA shoot. (thanks for the smile, Greta!)
Permalink
BruceGFriedrich Posted 10:57 am
22 Sep 2007
A lot of a.r. people think we shouldn't try to reform factory farming. A lot of a.r. people think we shouldn't promote vegetarianism (and others think that we don't promote it enough). And on and on. We try to listen and explain our view, while giving thanks for variety in the movement for animal rights and for everything everyone is doing to make the world a kinder place.
I didn't know that Jimmy Kimmel was an "avowed mysoginist." Isn't he partnered with Sarah Silverman? It's hard for me to imagine that SHE is with an a mysoginist.
Anyway, thanks for spelling out your view. It seems to me that if someone wants to take off their clothes for a cause, they should be allowed to, regardless of their body type.
Sincerely,
Bruce
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 11:36 am
22 Sep 2007
I figured out why they call us Deniers.
We deny Al Gore his speaking fees and book tours.
We deny Richard Branson the right to stink up the planet with airplanes and claim to be Green.
We deny the right of Hollywood Superstars to tell middle class Americans to save a gallon of gas while guzzling more consumer goods than Croesus.
We deny the right of IPCC Eurocrats to scarf free brie and espresso at endless Geneva conferences on our nickel (Global Climate Tax).
Permalink
Ellie Posted 12:16 pm
22 Sep 2007
Permalink
ruxandra Posted 4:48 pm
22 Sep 2007
"It seems to me that if someone wants to take off their clothes for a cause, they should be allowed to, regardless of their body type."
sure, but that's completely not the point. i'll repeat: the point is what tactics you, as an organization that supposedly wants to promote respect for all beings, are willing to use, and why. you cannot build a movement for the rights of some on the backs of others - if that's part of your tactics, then what exactly is "ethical" about what you're proposing? and the thing is, as far as the criticism, you haven't explained your view. you are not doing it here; as soon as it gets to a true discussion you bow out. and peta has never explained - as i said, they've always reacted precisely like this: we don't see the objectification of women as an issue, in fact it's "empowering," the models are doing it for free, and we are going to keep making these ads because we like it, end of discussion.
merely repeating "we are a feminist organization" does not equal explaining. or cancelling out the non-feminist actions.
Permalink
ruxandra Posted 5:54 pm
22 Sep 2007
as for the "but these ads reach a lot of people and resonate with them and are therefore good" spiel, that's just it: a lot of people see these ads and take away the message that a.r. is compatible with misogyny - that in fact if they are to care for animals they should compensate by viewing women as "other" as much as possible and treating them accordingly... which "resonates," sure, because it's a stance that the patriarchal mainstream culture is predicated on. but why is it something that peta promotes?
like ellie and greta have said - other than catching someone's attention for all the wrong reasons, how is seeing a naked female body convincing anyone to give up meat on ethical grounds, to have respect for their fellow beings?
and not that social justice is all fun and games anyway, but... just because jokes are usually at the expense of women, because misogyny is funny to a lot of people, doesn't mean that's the kind of humor we should all use and doesn't make it any less bad if a "social justice" group employs it in their campaigns. quite the opposite.
Permalink
Wolfy Posted 11:22 pm
22 Sep 2007
Permalink
ruxandra Posted 11:51 pm
22 Sep 2007
Permalink
BruceGFriedrich Posted 11:59 pm
22 Sep 2007
The thing that I don't like about these sorts of exchanges is that they're so impersonal; we seem to be talking past, rather than with, each other. And I also think that in a forum like this, people tend to say things in ways they don't intend. It hasn't happened on this forum, but on the two vegetarian forums on Grist right now (check them out in the "most commented" section), and also on my piece on http://www.CommonDreams.org, things are out of hand, I think (both sides). It's weird--we agree on so much more than we disagree on, and we pillory one another over the disagreements.
Anyway, I suspect we're not going to convince one another. We both know the other side well. I won't be near a computer again until tomorrow, when I'll be working, so I may not be able to get back on Grist for a few days. Regardless, we seem to be talking in circles. But if you want to keep doing so, shoot me an email at BruceF(at)peta.org.
"Some a.r. people don't want us to promote veganism": I was not implying that this is you--sorry if that's the impression you got. We hear all the time from a.r. people who say it's not realistic, that we should promote humane meat or less meat, but not veganism. We hear this even from vegans, who simply want us to be as effective as possible. We don't agree, though I won't go into that argument here. I'm just telling you what I meant, b/c you seemed incredulous.
You say I brushed you off; this is hard for me to understand. I tried very hard to explain my view to you; I simply don't agree with you. It seems to me that you feel so strongly that you're right that you feel that disagreement indicates non- acknowledgment and "brushing off." I tried to reply to your points; it seems to me that you just don't like my answers.
Thanks for the compliment re: my mom's art; I like it too. She didn't like some of the people with whom PETA works, but she felt that anyone should be able to participate in our campaigns in whatever way they wanted, and she liked that we were thrilled to have anyone. She also liked that some people who don't agree with her on certain issues wanted to help animals. She didn't think the naked campaigns were sexist, for the same reason we don't. She didn't think that nudity was exploitative, even if the naked people are of a certain body type.
The thing that you say that I find most perplexing from you as an animal right activist is this: "you cannot build a movement for the rights of some on the backs of others." Two points:
1) We disagree that our naked campaigns are on the backs of anyone. We're not ignoring you, brushing you off, etc. We just don't agree.
My larger confusion though, is this:
2) Every progressive, peace, and feminist event I've attended that had food (tons, going back more than 25 years) served animal products--all but some of the peace rallies literally served animals' corpses, in addition to serving eggs and dairy products.
For background, before I came to PETA, I ran a shelter for families (mostly single moms) and a large soup kitchen in D.C. for more than 6 years; we (who ran the shelter and kitchen) also participated in all the peace and other progressive rallies. From the time I could walk, my parents were bringing me to feminist, gay rights, civil rights, sanctuary (Central America), and peace events (so for more than 30 years).
Very few progressive or anti-war groups, and not a single civil rights or feminist group other than FAR has a vegan policy. So animals are being horribly abused and their corpses devoured by progressives, environmentalists, civil rights and peace activists, feminists, and so on (this is why I'm an animal rights activist, by the way).
My point IS NOT (so please don't interpret it this way) that it is okay for a.r. groups to be racist, anti-progressive, sexist, or pro-war because the civil rights and other progressive movements are so deeply anti-animal (it doesn't get any more anti-animal than eating animals' tortured corpses). My point is that if you as an animal activist belong to any of these groups, it seems to me that you're applying a speciesist double standard by supporting groups that are trying to "build a movement for the rights of some on the backs [well, the tortured corpses, actually] of others." i.e., human rights groups can pay for tortured animal corpses and refuse to address the issue at all, and you support them.
By the way, my feminist wife and I are monthly donors to the ACLU, Doctors Without Borders, AFSC, and other progressive groups, and I continue to attend peace and other social justice meetings and rallies. I wish they wouldn't serve meat, but I still support them, because I like most of what they're doing.
Of course I don't think that you should withdraw your support for non-a.r. groups, but you might want to think about why you have such antipathy for PETA over one thing with which you disagree, even as you support many groups with which you vehemently disagree on the issue of the horrible animal abuse they're supporting.
Again, I won't be back on here until tomorrow night at the earliest.
Permalink
ruxandra Posted 12:13 am
23 Sep 2007
and, yeah, i think we agree on lots of things but you are refusing to see the point and brushing off the concerns (with any come-back imaginable, just nothing that addresses why go there, why choose blatant sexism and objectification).
Permalink
ruxandra Posted 12:18 am
23 Sep 2007
Permalink
Karen Lee Orr Posted 12:55 am
23 Sep 2007
Nuggets and Hummers and fish sticks, oh my!
PETA VP argues vegetariansim is the best way to help the planet
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/9/17/16200/7809
PETA's dogma is all bark and no bite: Animal rights group makes
the stupid claim that enviros must be vegetarians
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/9/12/9262/63548
Vegetarianism and Environmentalism: PETA's latest campaign
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/9/16/174625/254
Can't we all just...........be vegans?
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/9/16/161924/884
The subjects of PETA and vegetarianism
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/9/14/1698/31472
Not so fast....on meat eating and global warming
http://www.grist.org/advice/ask/2007/09/17/index.html
From Population to PETA
http://www.grist.org/etc/gristlist/2007/09/21/index.html
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 1:30 am
23 Sep 2007
Guilliermo, not so much. But taken together they do make a priceless case for veg!
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 2:31 am
23 Sep 2007
I do find it hard to imagine a better visual illustration of the the case that carnivory is inessential to human health than to show a healthy (ever-so-discreetly) naked human body at exercise, voiced over with the personally-identified subject's own pro-vegetarian narrative. Tell me again where the sexuality/exploitation/reification comes in?
Permalink
Greta Posted 3:10 am
23 Sep 2007
HEADLINE OPTIONS:
"Got feminine protection?"
"Feminine protection for those heavy days"
maybe a smaller, say Glock, gun could be used with the appropriate:
"Feminine protection for those light days".
"Feminine protection...I never leave home without it."
Hehe.
Permalink
karenc Posted 4:14 am
23 Sep 2007
Permalink
Ellie Posted 5:03 am
23 Sep 2007
Precisely, it's an ad that appeals to human vanity and an interest in the opposite sex-- the living beings it purports to represent get lost in the publicity.
It's easy to dismiss objection as 'prudish', but it means the difference between self-centered activism and making the interests of non-human animals the priority.
This is part of the reason why "animal rights" has become an umbrella term, to the point where it's meaningless. It's been co-opted to suit the activists, not the animals. So-called "AR people" who try to modify animal husbandry corrupt the ethic that speaks for non-human beings.
Permalink
VegSwimr Posted 7:01 am
23 Sep 2007
What is sexist about that? Keep in mind that the most oppressive, misogynist, conservative societies are those that force women to keep covered and silent. The most liberal, open societies are those in which women are free to wear (or not wear!) what they want and speak out as they wish.
Alicia is a beautiful vegetarian woman who chooses to speak out for what she believes in a manner that will get the most attention. What's the harm in that?
Permalink
VegSwimr Posted 7:14 am
23 Sep 2007
* http://www.LettuceLadies.com/broc.html
* http://www.PETAIndia.com/mods3.jpg
* http://www.FurIsDead.com/feat-Rodman2.asp
*http://www.barewitness.org/photoalbum/Paris-fur.htm
You might find it interesting to consider that it is the societies that allow women to wear revealing clothing in which women have the most rights and the most power. Likewise, it is the societies that punish women for wearing revealing clothing in which women have the fewest rights and the least power--they are considered chattel who must do as they are told. Should women only be allowed to participate in activism if they promise not to show their bodies or use their bodies as political statements? If a person chooses to use his or her physicality and sexuality to convey a message of his or her choosing, aren't those who would censor him or her, even if their motives are good, also somewhat guilty of disrespect and repression?
Take Ms. Traci Bingham, for example, who posed for our "All Animals Have the Same Parts" ad campaign (http://www.GoVeg.com/feat/tracibee/). She is a deeply committed vegetarian who is known to millions for her television work, including beating out a platoon of men to excel in an endurance test called "Boot Camp." She is strong-natured, and she has chosen to use her body as a political tool to grab public attention for serious animal issues. In this case, Ms. Bingham felt offended by the traditional "meat" posters that treat animals as "parts," and she wanted to make the point that neither they nor women should be viewed as parts--we are all precious.
As you know, billions of animals are bred every year for the sole purpose of having their bodies chopped up, stamped with the label "USDA meat," and stuck into tidy packages on supermarket shelves. Like us, animals raised for their flesh have personalities and feelings, and they form families and friendships if given the chance. But factory farms deny animals everything that is natural and enjoyable to them, condemning them to tortured lives in filthy, cramped cages, stalls, and sheds, where only a steady diet of drugs keeps them alive long enough to be prodded to the slaughterhouse.
Our purpose is to stop animal suffering like this, and we use all available opportunities to reach millions of people with powerful messages. We have found that people do pay more attention to our racier actions, and we consider the public's attention to be extremely important. Sometimes this requires tactics--like naked marches and colorful ad campaigns--that some people find outrageous or even "rude," but part of our job is to shake people up and even shock them in order to initiate discussion, debate, questioning of the status quo, and of course, action. After PETA publicized our "State of the Union Undress," for example, we were rated the number one "mover" on Yahoo's search engine, meaning that PETA received the greatest percentage increase of terms searched that day. The current situation is critical for billions of animals, and our goal is to make the public think about the issues. Although some consider our projects that include nudity to be controversial, many women express support for these tactics.
However, PETA does make a point of having something for all tastes, from the most conservative to the most radical and from the most tasteless to the most refined, and this approach has proved amazingly successful--in the more than two decades since PETA was first founded, it has grown into the largest animal rights group in the world, with over 1.1 million members and supporters worldwide. For more information about PETA's vital work for animals, please visit http://www.PETA.org/about.
Please know that we respect your right to disagree with our tactics but hope that you will continue to support projects that you do agree with, such as our free vegetarian starter kit giveaways (http://www.GoVeg.com/order.asp) or our low-cost spay/neuter clinic (http://www.HelpingAnimals.com/).
Thank you for providing us with this opportunity to respond to your concern and for all that you do to help animal
Permalink
BruceGFriedrich Posted 12:47 pm
23 Sep 2007
I think the PETA form reply sums it up--we disagree with the idea that the ads are sexist or objectifying. We're not refusing to see the point; we're not brushing off concerns. We disagree. It's not a brush off to say "we disagree," though clearly, since you feel so strongly, perhaps any response other than agreement with your view will feel like a brush off.
If a group is serving meat at their events, they may as well be out there torturing and killing the animals themselves (heck, there would be some honesty in that, at least).
You say it's different to serve meat at events than "hunting to promote feminism," but I don't see any meaningful difference: First, there's no difference to the animals involved (well, since hunting is less cruel than factory farming, hunting actually wins out as morally preferable in this comparison). Second, by serving meat, they're serving tortured animals' corpses to promote their cause; how is that different from actually going out and shooting animals to promote the cause?
I'd say that if anything, a hunting trip to promote feminism would be less immoral than serving meat at feminist events.
Sincerely,
Bruce
Permalink
Ellie Posted 5:38 pm
23 Sep 2007
But more than that, what do naked celebrities do for the animals? If it were so affective, why are celebrities not stripping to end the genocide in Darfur, or for other causes? No one is questioning the right to be nude. It's a question of why it's done, and what's accomplished.
You said: "factory farms deny animals everything that is natural and enjoyable to them, condemning them to tortured lives in filthy, cramped cages, stalls, and sheds, where only a steady diet of drugs keeps them alive long enough to be prodded to the slaughterhouse. Our purpose is to stop animal suffering like this..."
Reality check here-- as long as animals are bred, used, and killed, they will suffer. I recently saw a photo of chickens on a "free-range" farm, hundreds practically standing on top of each other in a room. No wonder they're still debeaked. I'm sure they still walk on their own feces, and like their caged cousins, they'll get killed in short order.
The same is true for other animals, and for regulations that mean nothing in terms of mass production. Reforming factory farms certainly won't end animal suffering. In fact, it often encourages meat eating, which is why animal industries are willing to cooperate.
But some activists need to feel they can make a difference, even when it doesn't exist. This is the self-centered activism I'm talking about-- it's about making activists feel good-- not the animals. The bar is set so low as to appeal to animal enterprise that it's easy to claim "victories", and attract membership in the groups that promote these tactics, but the animals are not winning.
Permalink
ruxandra Posted 5:38 pm
23 Sep 2007
you are NOT addressing any of the issues: it is NOT about "tastelessness" or even "nudity" - so basically peta is answering some other points it likes to bring up, NOT the sexism criticism. that's what's called brushing off concerns.
and i and others already anticipated the rest of the "responses," i'm sure peta has seen these arguments lots of times, and just can't address them:
-- the fact that there are exceptions only goes to enforce the rule (yes, i'm glad there's a "lettuce lady" guy, that makes it all SO much better)
-- how "strong" and "beautiful" and "great" the women who are doing these ads are doesn't matter, and neither does the fact that they are not getting compensated and they are "choosing" to appear in these ads: the criticism directed at peta has to do with why peta, as an organization, is choosing these campaigns. it's not like sexism is just there, and peta can't help itself but partake and it comes through in its campaigns (although of course it is more than a little bit like that).
-- the fact that women are able to "express" themselves freely when that expression has to involve getting naked for their voices to be heard is not a feminist gain, and is not that much better than women having to stay covered in those "other cultures" that are so misogynist, as opposed to ours. NOT recognizing this at any level, refusing to see it, makes you un-feminist... and in fact it's anti-feminist.
and now a couple more things:
-- specifically about that ad with the body parts: how IRONIC and unbelievable that you should reference it when you probably know that an image exactly like that, with a naked woman whose body parts are marked as meat cuts, has been used seriously in the past, as a sexist illustration! though peta may not acknowledge this, misogyny and violence against women is out there, women are being compared to animals, demeaned and abused everyday, very seriously. so what is your message?? for a majority of people, that ad doesn't work as a protest against meat: all they see is a woman's body offered "for consumption," and that's common, and titillating, and ok enough.
-- which brings us to your point that your "state of the union undress" video "received the greatest percentage increase of terms searched that day"... so what?? it's not surprising that it did, as it featured a young woman getting completely naked - but as i said already sometimes the fact that something resonates with people is not a good sign, as you, as a group that's fighting to change the status quo in some way, should know! you should not measure your success by how much you appeal to the mainstream with things that are wrong about the mainstream in the first place.
-- if peta has reached so many people by pandering to the mainstream through shock tactics and whatever means possible, then how do you all measure the "amazing success" of this approach - and why haven't you had more actual results?? meat consumption has increased steadily, as i know you know... as a group with over a million of members and such convincing campaigns shouldn't you have been able to do more?!?
but you obviously don't care. and you don't care about alienating those of us who are trying to work on both fronts: against the objectification and exploitation of women as well as against the objectification and exploitation of non-humans. that's the concern, and you should pay attention - but i think nobody will be holding their breaths by now.
finally: bruce, i have to say i'm quite disappointed, even though i wasn't holding my breath: it seemed to me that you'd be able to get it, if you chose to. but you don't (not sure which), and your response to me is truly ridiculous. 1. when faced with a criticism you can't just "disagree," you have to explain how that criticism doesn't apply - and you haven't done that (i say those ads pander to the tradition that women have to get naked to count, their bodies have to be sexualized and objectified to appeal to people, and peta's choice to use women's bodies in pornographic ways to "send messages" about animal rights is not just sexist but misguided! that you just "disagree" doesn't mean anything), 2. i said that i wouldn't support a group that had meat eating as a campaign, either - my criticism of peta is not that its members are sexist or that they don't care about sexism or that peta's events have sexist aspects to them (not saying that shouldn't be done, just that it's not the issue here), but that you all are thinking up ad campaigns that promote and prop up sexism. i am not going to argue in the hypothetical example which is most cruel and should win out, hunting or factory farming, it's ridiculous; i didn't ask you to compare objectifying women and rape and which i'd prefer that peta did... "like hunting [or meat-eating] for feminism" was a simile to illustrate the fact that some campaigns are harmful and pointless and self-defeating - which you're rejecting because peta's ads are not sexist anyway, right? so let's stop talking about it, as it doesn't matter and we won't get to a real discussion of the issue at hand.
besides, i honestly don't know what events you're going to, but the majority of marches and actions i attend, other than a.r. related ones, don't "serve food"... and anyway many of the others do serve vegan food on principle. and if they don't - i try to make sure i speak up. right now i'm co-organizing a feminist event, and it will have a vegan baking workshop and exclusively vegan food; and i'd be very vocal if my group wanted to serve meat, LET ALONE have a campaign promoting meat.
but getting back to peta: you all have lots of money and lots of influence and will continue to be what the majority of people think of when they think "animal rights": just start "caring about animals," you don't have to care about anything else, not other social justice issues, not half the population... as long as peta is the number one "mover" on Yahoo's search engine everything's ok!
Permalink
ruxandra Posted 6:02 pm
23 Sep 2007
Permalink
ruxandra Posted 11:06 pm
23 Sep 2007
after seeing what some of the other peta-related discussions here are... the other "funny" thing is how peta couldn't be any more vehement and black-or-white about calling others on their b.s. but refuses to see their own and justifies their unethical practices with... statements. "we disagree." "we are a feminist organization." well, to all you peta staffers who seem to be on this site, calling yourself feminist when you're promoting misogyny and the exploitation of women is not only JUST like eating meat yet calling yourself an environmentalist*, it's more like eating meat yet calling yourself an a.r. person! and that's all aside from the points that ellie has made. what is peta really accomplishing? even on here? i've always wondered if peta realizes there are completely interconnected social justice issues in this world... or if they care about that, at all.
--
* because though it's true that for the vast majority of "eco" people around veganism should be the first step towards reducing the ecological footstep, whether no one can be a "meat-eating environmentalist" actually depends on the definition of "environmentalist" as well as the context "one" is in: some people, in certain times and situations, have been known to use animals for food but (successfully) protect the environment first and foremost... the point, strictly environmentally speaking, is the ecological footstep one, right?
Permalink
BruceGFriedrich Posted 7:18 am
24 Sep 2007
But I know PETA's women feminists better than I know Ruxandra and Ellie, so I'm going to lean toward agreeing with them. I'm also more convinced by their arguments, as noted above.
I agree that the generic PETA response didn't address your concerns, R, but my responses did. We don't think these adverts objectify. We do think people should be able to use their sex appeal for a cause. We don't agree that doing so is sexist.
And onto your other point: Every NOW fundraiser and dinner, every ACLU fundraiser and dinner, every progressive groups' fundraiser and dinner--they all serve the corpses of tortured animals, and they do it to promote their progressive cause. Actually, so do most of the big Earth Day events and a lot of the big peace rallies.
Anyway, I'm sorry we don't agree. We do hear what you're saying, but we disagree with your analysis.
That said, thank you for all you're doing to make the world a kinder place.
Sincerely,
Bruce
Permalink
ruxandra Posted 3:25 pm
24 Sep 2007
as for "onto my other point"... well, i don't go to now and aclu fundraisers or dinners. i did help out with fundraising dinners for a progressive group where i was on staff, for a couple of years; those dinners were all vegan. and i've been part of earth day celebrations where we, with the vegetarian society and the a.r. group, were the food providers. you're wrong, too - while way more progressives are meat eaters than should be the case, lots of grassroots progressive groups do not serve meat at their events. and i think you might agree with me (i expect you know enough feminists because of your mom, at least) that feminist groups are some of the most vegetarian environments outside veg* groups that you'll be able to find. lots and lots of the people doing hard work in vegetarian and animal rights groups are feminist women (and some men). (and as i said more than a few of us dislike peta's misogynistic campaigns and boycott you. which actually makes me wonder about all these feminist women in peta - where are they, what do they say, what are their views and are they really all the same?) anyway, i know i am not supporting, even slightly, any group that is advertising meat or promoting meat as a campaign. but this is all a tangent. i am not responsible for all the progressive groups in this universe and what their members eat, though part of what i do is to change things on that front - however, you are very responsible for your own organization and what it does! you and all the other feminist people in your organization should speak out about your own campaigns being sexist. i honestly do not believe you that you don't see them as sexist. which means i'm paying you a compliment. and that's about it from me.
Permalink
alaskalainen Posted 1:00 am
25 Sep 2007
http://moscowthroughbrowneyes.blogspot.com/2007/08/more-e ...
Not that environmentalists get much better treatment, either:
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1648456,00. ...
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 3:20 am
25 Sep 2007
Meanwhile, the two-part mammoth story presents no less than three different subjects, all fascinating:
1., the exploitation and commodification of Siberian Pleistocene fossils, with very possibly an adverse effect on our understanding the paleobiology of the region;
2., the impoverishment and decline of the Yukagir, along with many other Siberian peoples, whose culture and languages will soon be lost;
3., the degradation of Siberian permafrost, and the resulting release of methane as organic matter decays.
Permalink
banana republican Posted 3:26 am
25 Sep 2007
They're target audience is NOT a bunch of men cruising the internet for porn. Chances are, not many of them are going to become vegetarians.
People aren't going to go vegetarian because of some celebrity. And as for why so many people think PETA is sexist, consider that this kind of thing is about the only thing they ever get in the news for. My fiance was a member at one point - and they didn't even have the decency to answer a letter she sent asking why they objectify women in their adds, yet they continue to send things asking for money. That to me shows how much they respect both women and their members.
Permalink
Ellie Posted 4:29 am
25 Sep 2007
As for asking Alicia Silverstone, her motives were not in question here, but I think it's fair to say that like PeTA, celebrities thrive on publicity too-- and I wouldn't expect either to admit it.
Justice for women is an afterthought, but if nudity is supposed to convey feminine freedom, as some posters contend, the ad is hardly a pace setter.
I'm still wondering why some people think it's ok in relation to non-human beings, when it would be unthinkable for other causes.
Permalink
Paul Wolfe Posted 6:33 am
25 Sep 2007
I come at this as someone who has thought that every naked PETA campaign is idiotic, not because of sexism, but because they trivialize a serious topic. I agree with you that a serious issue deserves a serious approach.
Yet, I like the Alicia Silverstone ad. Mainly, I think the message is not about the cause, but about vegetarians. Bruce F streaking through London = animal rights activists are morons (sorry Bruce). Alicia's ad = vegetarians are sexy. I think it had much to do with the execution and artfulness of the AS ad.
If someone goes vegan due to ethics, perfect. If they adopt a vegan diet because they want to be sexy or want to emulate a celebrity, not as good, but as they can then accept animal rights arguments without changing their diet, it may open a door for ethical vegan outreach that might otherwise be closed.
I don't think you can compare this to a naked ad about Darfur, but if a beautiful Darfur refugee wanted to do an ad like the AS ad to, in which she says "I am a Darfur refugee," well, why not? Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie, two beautiful people routinely "objectified" for their looks, went to Darfur, with the idea that the cameras are always following them, so why not have the cameras follow them and their beautiful bodies and faces to Darfur to draw attention to the region. Was that wrong? Was that sexist?
Permalink
ruxandra Posted 7:15 am
25 Sep 2007
well, so then don't compare it. sexism, with its relations to power differentials and historical and cultural traditions of opression, is something else than "admiration for looks" - this is why alicia silverstone emerging wet from a pool in slo mo and looking seductively into the camera while crawling around naked is different from, say, brad pitt and angelina jolie just walking around going about their business. and this is why i was joking that when i try to convince someone to go vegan i don't do the kinds of things those peta ads portray. nobody does! why? because why would we? - to ourselves we're people, not "others," not abstract "things" (whose only worth is sexual). it's that simple.
i will admit that this alicia silverstone ad is not the "worst" among the different peta ads that try to capitalize on female objectification, though, and i also agree completely that one dimension of all these kinds of tactics is the trivialization of issues (as i said, how is thinking some celebrity is sexy making anyone have more respect for all beings?), but by bringing it all back to "tastefulness" when the issue is not how racy but how sexist this stuff is, you're trivializing something yourself.
my own answer to ellie's question (which is actually about the trivialization of certain issues too) is that, obviously, some issues are very easy for most people to trivialize! misogyny is an example. and further... this may seem unrelated, but the discussion here has reminded me at several points of another "debate" that i used to have a lot: "why are racial-based mascots racists"? the whole "but we're honoring them, we don't intend it to be harmful or insulting" rhetoric in that case (because, of course, we always "honor" those we respect on the football field) is to me exactly the same as the "but these ads are good 'cause we, the people who came up with them, say so - and you're deluded to find them sexist!" ... anyway, i wonder what all these kinds of disagreements are really ultimately about? hm...
Permalink
ruxandra Posted 8:09 am
25 Sep 2007
Permalink
ruxandra Posted 8:25 am
25 Sep 2007
Permalink
Ellie Posted 12:02 pm
25 Sep 2007
I agree it's possible they might consider ethics somewhere down the line, but when the attraction to such ads is self-centered, I think the chances are unlikely. And if they ever do become advocates, I think self interest can be a problem, as I described above.
I also agree it's easier to make light of some causes, which is why advocacy for the least valued beings on this planet should not be trivialized. If non-human animals are so insignificant as to require Hollywood glitter, what does that say about them?
And of course a plant food diet will not make you sexy either.
So what are all these disagreements really about? For me, I think if thousands of years of oppression are ever to be undone, animal advocacy has to be based on uncompromising respect for animals.
Permalink
Paul Wolfe Posted 12:53 am
26 Sep 2007
The ad ends with a link to website cite, and while the website may not be perfect, it could lead people to veganism for the right reasons. Meet Your Meat has converted plenty of people.
I also think the AS ad has some particular relevance in the context of vegetarianism that might not apply to other causes -- that you can be vegetarian and be healthy and vibrant (though not as healthy and vibrant as the people in the herpes commercials, but still. . . ).
Permalink
Karen Lee Orr Posted 1:41 am
26 Sep 2007
Please distribute
Permalink
CyberBrook Posted 3:34 am
26 Sep 2007
"[Animals] were not made for humans any more than black people were made for whites or women for men."
Alice Walker
Meat Eating and Global Warming
http://www.ivu.org/members/globalwarming.html
Eco-Eating: Eating as if the Earth Matters
http://www.brook.com/veg
Permalink
Ellie Posted 3:39 am
26 Sep 2007
If a viewer is interested in more than sexuality, they can download the link you mentioned, though I don't see it on the printed version, and I wouldn't be surprised if many viewers don't bother to check it out if they can.
Still, I think it's worth considering the right reasons for adopting a vegan diet. From what I've seen, it's people who go vegan because of the conditions on factory farms, who are most likely to resume eating animal products when they can buy the "free-range" or "certified humane" labels.
This is an animal welfare approach which fails to address the animal's interest in not being exploited to begin with. Once visible cruelty is removed, these people can't imagine animals have an interest in not being farmed.
In fairness, I couldn't download the sound on the Meet Your Meat video as my speakers aren't working, but it does appear to take this approach.
Permalink
ruxandra Posted 4:19 am
26 Sep 2007
there's also COMPASSION OVER KILLING, who are super awesome.
again, groups that don't have millions, aren't glamorous and hollywood-certified, and won't gratify anyone who wants such a "sissy" thing as compassion sold to them with a side of patriarchy-supporting sentiment, but are just doing the necessary work and walking the walk.
there's also the abolitionist approach.
Permalink
ruxandra Posted 4:51 am
26 Sep 2007
Permalink
tylepard Posted 4:57 am
26 Sep 2007
To learn more about population issues and age structures around the world, check out The Shape of Things to Come: Why Age Structure Matters to a Safer, More Equitable World, a new publication from Population Action International (PAI) which examines age structure and its bearing on political stability, improved governance, and economic development.
Also, if you're in the Washington, DC area: Please attend a discussion on this topic at the Wilson Center on October 2, 2007.
Permalink
Paul Wolfe Posted 6:20 am
26 Sep 2007
Permalink
Paul Wolfe Posted 6:30 am
26 Sep 2007
I guess I just didn't see the AS ad as being all that bad. Certainly nothing approaching their other naked stunts, their murdering of innocent cats and dogs, or their "economic reasons for Controlled Atmosphere Killing" factsheet. Nudity in and of itself doesn't bother me. I think nudity, when done artfully, is better, less silly, and less "objectifying," than things like lettuce bikinis.
Even if you disagree with me about the ad, you ought to have no trouble finding 100 things about PETA to complain about before getting to the AS ad.
Permalink
ruxandra Posted 6:58 am
26 Sep 2007
anyway. ok, i'm not that acquainted with the behind-the-scenes of cok these days, so they may not be as awesome as they used to. but i'm still recommending their site from what i can see.
Permalink
ruxandra Posted 7:18 am
26 Sep 2007
yup. agreed 100%. there are 100 things to complain about peta before getting to the a.s. ad. and personally i have - you just happened to see this particular complaint (however, as i explained i don't think the a.s. ad is either effective or sexism-free, because no matter how artful and set to "spiritual" music the video is, a.s. is crawling, shot from above, throwing coy looks over her shoulder etc. - so it's still got that signature "porn" style that peta usually goes for; it's reminiscent of the other naked campaigns. and the print ad is just... one slightly better one in a long boring sex-sells-so-let's-use-it-to-sell-veganism line).
ps: wait, what factsheet?
Permalink
Karen Lee Orr Posted 8:07 am
26 Sep 2007
http://www.drstevebest.org/papers/vegenvani/animalwelfare ...
Thinking Pluralistically: A Case for Direct Action
http://www.satyamag.com/apr04/best.html
Steven Best Interview
http://milwaukee.indymedia.org/en/2005/01/202662.shtml
Dr. Steve Best website
http://www.drstevebest.org/
Permalink
Ellie Posted 9:43 am
26 Sep 2007
The problem is the multi-million dollar groups which are making deals with even richer corporations, that turn animal advocates into animal husbandry activists. That includes PeTA.
If these groups were honest, I think they'd admit "humane" regulations don't work, can't work, and they also give tacit approval to animal use.
From an animal rights perspective, it's not a question of cruelty, but the animal's interest in not being exploited. To compare that to women's rights-- you can't rape a woman nicely.
And no offense, Karen, but Steve Best, for all his education, and misguided support of the ALF doesn't seem to understand that.
Permalink
lydaking Posted 10:11 am
26 Sep 2007
Here it is:
http://www.peta.org/CAK/CAK+economic+synopsis+with+letter ...
Permalink
GonzoDon Posted 1:41 pm
26 Sep 2007
U.S. citizens are merrily burning up gas in their SUVs while thousands of their soldiers die for oil in Iraq, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis die for, um, nothing. The U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights is being eviscerated by a frat-boy President who displays little intellectual understanding and even less curiosity about the world. The global warming issue demands immediate attention while all of Washington fiddles.
And what is that topic that, by far, appears to have most outraged the sensitive souls on this site? Why, the nude PETA models that 'objectify' women!
Sigh. Not exactly at the top of my list of topics meriting righteous outrage in 2007. One would think we might better direct that outrage at, oh, say, impeaching the arrogant bastard who currently occupies the White House. But heaven forbid that Alicia should allow herself to be objectified. Barely makes it worth going on living, eh?
Permalink
Ellie Posted 3:55 pm
26 Sep 2007
Avoiding cruelty to animals is ethical, but in the way it's usually understood, it's all about not causing animals pain. So the focus is on only one part of an animal's experience, when there's so much more.
When people see animals as commodities, which is how these campaigns require they be seen, then they can use animals if they believe they're treated humanely. The "certified humane" label is making millions.
And I've read a number of articles by former vegetarians (even Molly Katzen who wrote the Moosewood Cookbook) who now eat meat and dairy products from "compassionate" farms.
Permalink
Ellie Posted 4:04 pm
26 Sep 2007
Permalink
ruxandra Posted 4:41 pm
26 Sep 2007
as i was saying, somehow sexism is one of the easiest issues for people to trivialize (because caring at all about women is oh so frivolous and independent of other political stances).
@ellie: how is "compassion over killing" like "humane slaughter" at all, though? to me the words "compassion over killing" say precisely that there's no such thing as humane killing - that you can choose compassion OR killing... anyway, i know the point you're addressing and i agree that "animal advocacy" that doesn't recognize animal rights as an issue can't be about radical change, but i disagree with necessarily articulating it this way: "it's not a question of cruelty but the animal's right in not being exploited"? actually, just like with systemic violence against women, it's both: our basic rights include freedom from cruelty and abuse. if abuse is there, it has to be addressed. of course, it's a measure of the magnitude of speciesism as a problem that "humane slaughter" even exists as a concept [there are also plenty of people who do think that there is rape and then there is rape, btw...], but that doesn't mean that the concepts of "compassion" and "cruelty," used in an animal rights context, aren't valid. or at least i don't feel that way.
@lydaking: thanks. :( i guess it goes hand in hand with giving awards to slaughterhouse designers... but anyway i'm going to go worry about the important things now.
Permalink
ruxandra Posted 4:44 pm
26 Sep 2007
Permalink
Ellie Posted 2:09 am
27 Sep 2007
I'll try to compare your example of women's rights to explain what I mean. Protection from abuse is part of these rights, but when a woman is threatened, we wouldn't leave her in that situation. We wouldn't try to improve a marriage, for example, if she's being battered. To help her means getting her out of it.
That's an extreme example, but I think it's comparable to welfare (really animal husbandry) campaigns, in that animals remain farmed, or used in other ways.
So if the goal is to free them, as we would free abused women; and given all the problems and hypocrisy of regulations, I don't see how such campaigns support that goal. Some people think we can do both, and others think these campaigns harden animal use into law.
I agree "humane slaughter" is a testament to speciesism. About Compassion Over Killing, from what I remember reading years ago, they said they "hate killing", but if it's going to be done, it should be "humane". I couldn't support it because I felt animals don't need better ways of getting killed. They need not to be killed at all.
But I see they support veganism, rather then killing. Hooray! So I guess the issue for me is whether they're still trying to modify animal use, as I'm one of those people who don't think it supports animal rights.
Permalink
ruxandra Posted 5:47 am
27 Sep 2007
as far as cok: to me it doesn't seem like they'd say that "at least killing should be humane" - they certainly don't say it on the website (that i've ever noticed), i've personally never seen a position like that from them and, on the contrary, i've always thought them to be strictly for animal rights, critical of "free range" and very vocal about that... but anyway. perhaps i'm wrong about them - if there's evidence that they're (no longer) against killing, i won't maintain they're awesome.
the only things i wasn't agreeing with you about, ellie, were the "people who go vegan because of factory farm conditions" comment and criticism of using the terms "cruelty" and "compassion" as if they're somehow not appropriate for animal rights discourse (just because they are also used by people who are not against all use). i just don't think it's those terms/concepts that determine the problem. rather, it's more what "cruelty" and "compassion" encompass and what they don't. ok, getting into semantics...
i DO know where you're coming from though! it's pretty interesting actually - just recently i had a discussion with someone who was saying that we should all watch stuff like "meet your meat" as much as possible because we owe it to the animals to witness their suffering and be aware of all the extremes of cruelty perpetrated against them in order to advocate for them, and my position was that i've never been able to watch that video in its entirety even though i've shown it to other people and sat in front of it multiple times, but that i feel like i don't need to force myself to watch it, as i've seen way too many images along the same lines before and it's enough, and what's more i'm totally uncomfortable with the idea that only because of extreme cruelty should we advocate for the rights of animals! and then i gave the example of sexual assault, and how i'm an anti-violence activist but i don't feel like i need to watch videos of assaults to know that they're wrong, that any abuse is a violation of women's basic rights and therefore wrong. my final point was that if we, as activists, suggest in any way that the only reason one should care about animals' fates is because they're victims of extreme cruelty, then are we advocating for rights or just against the cruelty, when all's said and done? which, ellie, is i believe exactly your point here. (though while i'm at it i do want to say that i know "meet your meat" has helped turn a lot of people vegetarian at least, and i do think videos like it are useful to a certain extent as activist tools.)
i think i may be done commenting peta ads right now.
Permalink
ruxandra Posted 5:51 am
27 Sep 2007
Permalink
Ellie Posted 10:28 am
27 Sep 2007
It's not about animal rights because it doesn't challenge the use of animals. And when it singles out one perpetrator, I think people like to believe animals are treated better by others, which is probably not true.
The undercover investigation of Tyson farms comes to mind. Plenty of people were shocked by the cruelty, but that didn't stop most of them from eating chicken. If they cared, they bought a different brand, but who's to say that brand is not just as bad, or worse?
I've even thought, well, maybe at least it puts animal industries on alert, but if they're worried about undercover investigations, I bet they'd be extra careful about who they hire. Anyway, it's impossible to monitor how billions of animals are farmed and killed. That's why I think regulations and investigations can't work, even from the animal welfare perspective.
Also, I think you're right about terms like "cruelty" and "compassion"-- what they encompass is more important. True compassion toward animals would not be considered cruelty to humans in their place. But if it's the usual "compassion" of speciesism, then I think we wind up just promoting lesser degrees of cruelty.
In fairness, what I remember about Compassion Over Killing goes back at least 4 years, so I might be wrong. The important thing is I don't see anything that suggests they support "compassionate killing" now.
Are you familiar with the Asilomar Accords? To their credit, Compassion Over Killing is not a signatory.
Permalink
BruceGFriedrich Posted 12:43 pm
27 Sep 2007
http://www.animalliberationfront.com/News/2007_08/Support ...
Vegan Outreach and Compassion Over Killing are in favor of making living and dying conditions for animals less vile. None of us (not PETA or HSUS or COK or VO) calls it "humane."
Permalink
Ellie Posted 5:24 am
28 Sep 2007
The reasons to me are obvious. Animal welfare requires non-human beings be seen as products, and this is precisely why groups like PeTA and HSUS can make deals with animal enterprise. It also allows conscientious consumers guilt-free meals.
Let's also be honest about activism. PeTA and HSUS have never promoted welfare improvements as "less vile". If they did, they wouldn't encourage most activists to support their campaigns. And both PeTA and HSUS promote so-called "humane euthanasia", which is wrong on both counts. They may not call every regulation "humane", but they promote them as if animals will somehow enjoy their lives if these measures are in place-- and as if reformed farming is not cruel.
Will gassing chickens be so much better? Will their legs break when they are crammed into a truck and into the gas chamber? Will veal calves live in a room like "free-range" chickens, where they can still barely turn around? Can small family farms supply a nation of meat eaters?
In my view, it's very unrealistic to think millions of animal consumers can be supplied without mass production.
So I don't think these are substantial gains by any means, and that's to say nothing of the impossibility of enforcing them.
You say opposition to animal welfare is based on purity of vision. I think it's based on realizing how little these measures improve animal lives, and that animal rights requires they cease to be seen as products.
The paternalistic movement which advocated better treatment for human slaves is not regarded highly these days. Was it a stepping stone to abolition? I doubt it because paternalists believed Africans were suited to slavery, just as most people believe animals are suited to being exploited.
However it came about, abolition had to reject this paternalism in order to end human slavery. Better treatment of slaves did not bring freedom.
Unlike advocacy for human prisoners, animals rights challenges the foundation of dominion, as the abolition of human slavery did. The only way to liberate non-human animals is to support their right to be free of human dominion.
Permalink
ruxandra Posted 7:56 am
28 Sep 2007
but in my opinion there's another point. i would maintain that it's essential that cruelty and abuse are addressed, however this doesn't mean that it has to be done along the same lines that it has been so far, in the way pursued by most welfarists. to extend the parallel and continue something you started arguing, ellie, with regards to violence against women activism for change includes both seeking elimination of violence based on the idea that it violates women's rights AND helping out survivors because this is such an urgent and overwhelming need in society. BUT, on this issue unlike with animal welfare, very few activists would seek to collaborate with aggressors or with those institutions that constitute part of the problem - precisely because it's universally recognized by now (even while we live in a rape culture and a deeply patriarchal system) that women do (or should) have full "human rights." so in this case addressing violence while fighting for an end to it means helping out survivors in a variety of different ways (crisis centers, recovery programs, legal advocacy...), but this is done within a movement focused on challenging and stopping all individuals and institutions that help perpetuate the status quo. coming back to non-humans, a similar approach could be taken to address cruelty and abuse - help animals in any way possible and through different means but do not attempt to fight against abuse by making aggressors feel better about using a bit less than all-out sadism. just address the problem as close to the root as possible, and never through collaboration with those who commit the abuse. sure, this won't be easy because the rights of animals are not recognized in any way, and because most people are supporting the abuse, but then that's the problem, right?! we can remain forever in the same vicious cycle, or try to break out.
however (and this brings us back to the earlier discussion), breaking the vicious cycle means that it's absolutely vital that we recognize how different issues are interconnected, that the abuse and violence perpetrated against "the weak" - whether by "weak" we mean women or other oppressed groups or non-human animals or the environment - is all eliminated, and as activists and advocates for any of these issues we do not try to take advantage of one oppression to eliminate another... because as long as we do we won't get far enough with any of it. that's certain.
by the way, if you want to see some real-life results of even such a mild example - relatively speaking - of trying to promote an issue at the expense of another like the "a.s. stripping for vegetarianism" psa, just check this out!! yeah, those are the kinds of reactions such a campaign elicits - in most cases, you'll get both virulent misogyny AND anti-vegetarianism! as can be seen from virtually 100% of those comments, and as i and others were saying, because the campaign depends for its "effectiveness" on objectification of women, it will encourage misogynistic sentiments AND trivialize the cause it's supposedly promoting. and i have to say, the level of sexist hatred and abuse directed at a.s. for this particular ad surprises me though i expected it as i already saw the underlying misogyny quite clearly and i've encountered plenty of similar reactions to similar ads before... arrrgh.
Permalink
ruxandra Posted 8:14 am
28 Sep 2007
Permalink
Ellie Posted 11:02 am
28 Sep 2007
What you're saying about helping women in these situations is, I think, similar to rescuing animals. When it's honest and gives priority to animals, I support it 100%.
As you said, it's very different from activism which promotes alternative abuse as "compassionate", and which collaborates with abusers.
I can't even count the number of people I've met, on and off-line, who are proud of eating "free-range" meat and dairy. I mean they actually believe they're doing animals a favor by eating them! This can only come from the activism you and I oppose, where activists become advertisers for the meat industry.
And I think the misogyny and anti-vegetarian messages re: PeTA's ad are very sad. Selling sexuality is no way to promote the vegan ethic, but I was naively unprepared for the hostility that goes with it.
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 11:11 pm
28 Sep 2007
If she were poor, ill-educated and vulnerable, taking her clothes off for money to make rent and feed her kids, which of course she's not, I'd be concerned about the very real potential for exploitation. But misogyny? For sure there's plenty of misogyny in the world, and it doesn't need a PETA commercial to bring it out. But where exactly is it in this ad?
Permalink
ruxandra Posted 12:45 am
29 Sep 2007
further, since you're asking: and what, in your opinion, constitutes all this "misogyny in this world"? because from your "poor, ill-educated and vulnerable" comment it seems you think only a certain kind of woman is affected, somehow, by "misogyny" and that the exploitation problem is not the social and cultural environment which glorifies and normalizes exploitation in this particular way - of which every ad and image that promotes female-bodies-as-objects is part of - but just some women's victim status. what is your point? (other than that you think a.s. did this of her own free will - which is pretty independent of whether the ad works on sexist principles or not.)
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 1:30 am
29 Sep 2007
Exploitation is a separate matter. I understand exploitation as taking advantage of vulnerability, and I have no disagreement with your thought that exploitation is not limited to that particular group I mentioned. I would also agree, if that was your point, that all women, indeed all people, are affected by exploitation (and misogyny) whether or not they are directly exposed to it. I have recently expressed concern elsewhere in Grist about the exploitation of child actors. I suppose it is possible that Silverstone has some vulnerability outside of the categories I described which has allowed her to be exploited by PETA for this ad, but I have heard no evidence of it, nor for any other participant in the campaign. I would concur that the susceptibility of many men to being unduly affected by the sight of a naked female body is probably being exploited. Somehow this does not trouble me unduly. That susceptibility is unlikely to vanish until we evolve into a less puritan culture in which nakedness is commonplace and unremarkable. In the meantime such susceptibility in men will continue to be under relentless attack for other far less worthy causes, in which the actors and other participants are undoubtedly being objectified - Victoria's Secret commercials come to mind. The women in those commercials are apparently very well paid to promote messages which are not their own but are fed to them by their employers - self-expression is certainly not paramount in these ads. Whether this amounts to exploitation I do not presume to judge.
Permalink
ruxandra Posted 1:38 am
29 Sep 2007
Permalink
ruxandra Posted 2:04 am
29 Sep 2007
for the last time (really) - the sexism criticism has nothing to do with nakedness or puritanism and everything to do with systemic oppression of women which is not just a certain kind of hatred but a whole culture built on treating women as "other," of which relegating them to the sex class and to providing sexual titillation is only a small part, although one of the most common and mainstream ones. what you call here "men's susceptibility" is another v. related part.
btw, how those people are reacting to this ad is a direct result of both the fact that there's general misogyny out there and the fact that this ad is attempting to bank on that misogyny. the only thing we agree about 100% is that, indeed, no matter what a woman does or doesn't do she will encounter misogyny anyway - which is actually where peta's going wrong with these ads even aside from the ethical issue involved in their using sex to sell vegetarianism: selling female sexuality will not get people to respect either the women involved nor any other being. and that's my initial point from many comments ago.
Permalink
ruxandra Posted 3:22 am
29 Sep 2007
imagine peta coming up with a campaign that showed some macho guy cutting down a whole bunch of trees and saying "i've never been so healthy and strong as since i turned vegetarian - it's amazing!"... and tell me you wouldn't care. and that you wouldn't criticize peta's choice to promote vegetarianism at the expense of cutting down trees and ultimately urging the public to disregard that harm. now imagine peta did this all the time, in different ways - and in response to criticism called itself an environmental organization... and imagine having to explain AT ALL why the tactic is wrong and misguided and unethical.
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 5:16 am
29 Sep 2007
The issue with the hypothetical lumberjack ad would be that the ethics of tree-cutting is a well-known environmental hot button, so such an ad would have a problematic appeal to environmentalists. I totally get that.
I understand you feel that the abuse of female nudity and the objectification of women common in advertising and showbiz should be as much concern to environmentalists as tree-cutting. I get that too, and even agree with it in an everything-is-connected-to-everything-else kind of way. But I still have a hard time seeing this ad as an example of that institutionalized sexism. It portrays Silverstone as author and subject - not object - of her own statement, including the nudity. Unless you define misogyny so loosely as to be virtually meaningless, I just think it's the wrong critique.
Permalink
ruxandra Posted 5:50 am
29 Sep 2007
Permalink
ruxandra Posted 7:44 am
29 Sep 2007
+ that lots of people wouldn't care about trees getting cut would not change any of that.
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 7:58 am
29 Sep 2007
Permalink
Ellie Posted 9:13 am
29 Sep 2007
As many of us know, John Mackey is the CEO of Whole Foods Market. Although Mackey says he's a vegan, and claims to care about animals and the environment, his company earns millions of dollars from the sale of living beings who are killed for the taste of their flesh. Astute businessman that he is, Mackey knows how to promote his products-- not just by appealing arrangements in stores and the usual advertising, but by tapping into the booming market of what's come to be known as "animal welfare".
To this end, Mackey created Whole Foods Animal Compassion Foundation, which gives consumers the chance to "help animals" by eating "compassionate" meat. Although the Foundation states it is "a dynamic hub for ranchers, meat producers and researchers", and these producers will set and judge it's standards-- not to worry, because we're told "they care". No matter that farming and killing animals is inherently cruel.
Just to prove it, Mackey asked for animal husbandry activists-- aka "animal welfare" or "animal rights" groups-- to back his Foundation. The list of collaborators is long-- they include:
Animal Rights International (ARI)
Animal Welfare Institute (AWI)
Animal Place
Animal Protection Institute (API)
Association of Vets for Animal Rights (AVAR)
Bay Area Vegetarians
Christian Vegetarian Association
Compassion Over Killing (sorry Ruxandra)
Doris Day Animal League
East Bay Animal Advocates
Farm Sanctuary
Humane Society of the United States
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
Mercy for Animals
Northwest In Defense of Animals
Vegan Outreach
Viva!USA
And to this day, none of the above groups have withdrawn their support for the Animal Compassion Foundation, even though they claim to promote vegan/vegetarianism. The only group that refused to endorse it on behalf of the well being and rights of animals is Friends of Animals.
Following are links to the action taken by Friends of Animals with regard to the Animal Compassion Foundation. As Priscilla Feral (President) explains, "An interest in other animals' welfare doesn't mean paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to concoct new ways of relating to them on farms before baking, broiling, stir-frying or sautéing them. A day of 5% discounts on the store's vegan products would be far more appropriate."
http://www.friendsofanimals.org/news/2005/january/whole-f ...
http://www.friendsofanimals.org/news/2005/january/respons ...
Permalink
ruxandra Posted 9:40 am
29 Sep 2007
Permalink
ruxandra Posted 10:17 am
29 Sep 2007
Permalink
Ellie Posted 11:40 am
29 Sep 2007
I've wondered how these things happen. Do one or two groups at the top of the mainstream hub decide what most other groups should do? And well intentioned, but misguided activists just follow?
After all, the company of "in" groups can be a powerful connection, if that's their goal. And attracting members can be a strong incentive, but at the bottom line they either use their time and money for animals, or they betray them.
Permalink