ruxandra’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  @ellie

  actually, it bothers me much more that vegan outreach is on that list - as i actively support v.o.! i certainly wasn't aware they were one of the supporters of this whole foods initiative. i think i only saw a short version of that list at one point... but whole foods is bad news on a number of different fronts, including labor and business practices - i would've never thought that v.o. would extend official support to them even "just" on those ethical grounds! i mean, i'm pretty sure i've seen v.o. newsletters criticizing w.f. in all kinds of ways. and, besides, it's well-known that the w.f. ceo is someone who likes to call himself vegan to score "sympathy points" with a target customer base, even though he's not actually vegan... it's just indicative of so much about that company and what they do! argh. :( i'll be writing to vegan outreach v. soon.On From Population to PETA posted 2 years, 2 months ago 101 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  @spaceshaper

  you don't "disagree," then, you see differently. so does peta. and i guess it's quite debatable which of these 2 ways of seeing happens to be patriarchy-friendly - a quality which may or may not be a sure way towards improving the lives of those the patriarchal order of things is either dedicated to protecting the most or not protecting at all... like women, animals and nature. but sometimes it's just so hard to tell.On From Population to PETA posted 2 years, 2 months ago 101 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  and, you know,

  it wouldn't matter if the lumberjack in that hypothetical ad felt what he was saying from the bottom of his heart, if he was donating his time, if he seemed "empowered" or not - the trees would be cut, the message that harming the environment is no big deal would remain, and the campaign would still be wrong because it would still be a ridiculous, harmful and counter-productive way to go about promoting vegetarianism or respect for animals. and the organization would still be to blame for it.

  + that lots of people wouldn't care about trees getting cut would not change any of that.On From Population to PETA posted 2 years, 2 months ago 101 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  you're free to feel whatever you wish

  i explained the "definition of misogyny" part as well, over and over again already. i thought perhaps your difficulty was with seeing the bigger picture of what this ad does (thus the irrelevant "messages which are not their own" comment). but i notice that you are just completely ignoring the points about how a.s. is really portrayed here, how she's "othered," how her being naked and coy and titillating is irrelevant to what she's promoting, how this ad is part of a whole tradition of peta campaigns that objectify women and why peta is choosing this particular tactic over others, and you're just not responding to any of that so that you can keep saying you don't get it. well, i have better things to do than try to explain to you why you should see the obvious use of a naked woman's body as "bait" to promote a cause as sexism. you either care or you don't.On From Population to PETA posted 2 years, 2 months ago 101 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  ok

  i hate that people don't get it unless you compare the misogyny with some other wrong that they can understand (which reminds me again of the "racist mascots" debates: people wouldn't get how making a native american chief into a sports mascot was dehumanizing until you asked them to imagine the same being done to a religious figure they cared about), but here's my last attempt to explain this:

  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.On From Population to PETA posted 2 years, 2 months ago 101 Responses