BruceGFriedrich’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Wow--a lot can happen in a few days.

  This essay replies to Ellie's contention that animal rights activists should not support animal welfare reforms:

  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."
  On From Population to PETA posted 2 years, 1 month ago 101 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Sigh.

  I'm not keen on disagreeing with feminists about something, especially since I'm male and try to give female feminists the benefit of the doubt on what is and isn't objectifying and sexist.

  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
  On From Population to PETA posted 2 years, 1 month ago 101 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  42

  Ruxanda,

  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
  On From Population to PETA posted 2 years, 1 month ago 101 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  What is the product of 6 times 7?

  Ruxandra,

  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 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. On From Population to PETA posted 2 years, 1 month ago 101 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  PETA is a feminist organization.

  Thanks for explaining. Of course, the fact that a lot of people think something doesn't make it true; even people who agree on most things have big disagreements over the smaller things. It's an issue in every movement, of course.

  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,

  BruceOn From Population to PETA posted 2 years, 1 month ago 101 Responses