Comments ruxandra has made

@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

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

@spaceshaper

my previous comment wasn't in response to your last, we posted at the same time, and i was just repeating another earlier point which is the bottom line of this debate for me. but it might've been a response, too - because your latest point, as far as i can tell, is that this ad is not so bad because it tries to take advantage of "men's susceptibility to naked women's bodies" for a noble cause and is therefore "not objectifying" like, say, a victoria's secret ad(??). actually, i would say this ad is at least as bad as victoria's secret ads and definitely MORE objectifying - at least victoria's secret is using lingerie-clad bodies to sell lingerie! it's more honest.  but let's not get into all that now.

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

see above

you know, it's your responsibility to understand. but i have already answered you explicitly. and you can check the reactions i linked to in the last 2 comments to see the misogynistic implications of the ad at work. AGAIN, what does it even mean to say that someone crawling around naked is them "expressing their deeply held convictions"? think about that for a second. do you crawl around naked to express yourself and to appeal to people? the only reason you're making such a point is because our patriarchal culture says women's primary role is to provide sexual titillation and be a "female body" first and a person second. in precisely the same way as it says that non-human animals' primary role is to serve people's interests. you should be able to see the parallel, and so should peta. and AGAIN what's misogynist about the ad is objectifying and othering this woman's body to sell some message... AGAIN, the criticism is not about a.s. choosing to pose for the ad, but peta's choice of campaign.

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

complexity of the problem

ellie, yes. and, yeah, the problem with welfare in the sense of collaborating with animal exploiters for "better conditions" is indeed, for all intents and purposes, propping up the system - even if one can say that as long as conditions are improved and cruelty regulated, it's worth it.

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

all that

yes, i'd agreed about all the points in your previous comment and i realize what animal rights means. :) though perhaps it's useful to elaborate here.

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

better yet, let's not care about anything

@gonzodon: hey, you've hit one of the most important antifeminist attacks missing from that one bingo card! personally, i was waiting for it. right, "there's more important things to worry about than these frivolous things" - well, the fact that in your eyes misogyny is not an issue in this world is your problem. and the fact that people somewhere dare to discuss something other than one of your favorite topics is... too bad for you! some of us can worry about and work on multiple issues of social justice at the same time.

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

yeah?

i was not aware of a drastic overhaul in their leadership, but their campaigns and actions don't seem that different. well, for instance, on the site they have a lot of material on veganism (i'd call that "against use") and extensive stuff on "the free range myth" (this is one of their campaigns i remember from a while ago, when they were one of the few groups with info on the issue... and totally anti-use)! but, also, in my opinion we have to focus on cruelty to a large extent, that's much of the work that needs to be done and ideologically the fact that you condemn cruelty doesn't mean you're just for better conditions. i mean it can, of course, but... hm... is cruelty not the thing to focus on anymore?! news to me. oh, yeah, i'd actually disagree with ellie (though i do know what specific thing you're addressing, ellie) about saying that people who go vegan because of factory farm conditions are the least likely to stay vegan! why? to me, if it's for an ethical reason and for maximizing compassion and for animal rights, it has the potential to be a genuine, non-faddish, life-long thing - a stance against cruelty AND against use!

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

about the animals

if we're giving links, VEGAN ACTION and VEGAN OUTREACH are two grassroots groups that put their energy (and their small budgets) into campaigns that reach and educate lots and lots and lots of people, and yet somehow don't feel that they have to attach "othered" human bodies to their materials to make the animal rights message more palatable and comfortable. from my own experience with different veg*an communities, the WHY VEGAN? brochure, which is 100% about the issues, has done more to convey the message and convince people to be ethical vegans than anything else out there.

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

about this ad in particular

i forgot the most pragmatic point, the problem with its direct message: the implication that just by going vegan you are going to lose weight and look amazing is b.s. - every person has their own experience with veganism, since "veganism" means "just" not using or consuming certain things - there's no prescription for what you will be consuming. the only thing you can say about veganism that's universally true and that should actually encourage people lots is that 1. it's not that hard to do and 2. you can fit veganism into pretty much any lifestyle you want... simply put, the majority of people don't need animal products. but as a vegan you can be unhealthy, you can gain weight (which is ok, by the way)... and you can be utterly unsexy. and that's my psa. :DOn From Population to PETA posted 2 years, 2 months ago 101 Responses

oy vey

yeah, thank you, but your responses haven't addressed my concerns at all either. i explained how they didn't. you've not discussed anything, for a host of reasons, of which one now seems to be that you  choose not to disagree with feminists and you want to give them the benefit of a doubt about what's sexist... except when you don't. you don't have to know me, it's not personal, it's about some issues. the only thing that came even close to addressing part of the criticism has been your stating "those ads DON'T objectify." but they DO - that's their whole premise, it's how they function... by repeating "not" you're being either deluded or dishonest, and insulting people's intellect if you expect them to see what you're doing and believe that you're NOT doing it. if you want, i'll define objectification. i'm sure i don't need to do that - but look at the specific criticisms: the "cuts of meat" image duplicates an old-school misogynistic one and works along with equating women with animals and demeaning both, the "fur trim" works along with shaming women about body hair, the "kindness is a class act" evokes underage porn, and so on and so forth... how is all of that NOT sexist? again, it's not about nudity, or someone's sex appeal, or their right to be sexy, or anything like that. it's about peta using female bodies, in ways that are conventionally exploitative, demeaning, meant to evoke or straight-out be misogynistic porn, for your own ends, which have nothing to do with women's sexuality. and it's a criticism directed at peta, not these women.

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

"human body at exercise"

wait, did i say that in order to convince people around me to stop eating meat i usually take my clothes off in slo-mo? actually, i crawl naked with a seductive smile on my face... aka "exercise." aka fighting the good fight, liberated woman-style.On From Population to PETA posted 2 years, 2 months ago 101 Responses

one more point though

the one thing i don't understand is that while you're drawing that comparison, which i think is quite valid, you're also saying that we disagree about those ads. and then my question is: so is there a problem with the ads, which peta is just brushing off like others do with a.r. issues, or is there no problem at all, as peta always insists?On From Population to PETA posted 2 years, 2 months ago 101 Responses

thanks

for playing antifeminist bingo. you're getting there.On From Population to PETA posted 2 years, 2 months ago 101 Responses

as usual, brushing off the concerns

@bruce: a lot of a.r. people don't want veg*anism promoted? really? and what kind of a.r. people might these be? or what are they really saying? we're talking about principles and ethics, and you can make it sound as if criticism about peta's sexism is as ridiculous as a.r. not involving promoting veg*anism or as complicated as whether we should work on reforming factory farming at all... but my point was that it isn't, that in fact it's an obvious problem with an obvious solution, if you all are so "feminist!" that along with all kinds of feminists who aren't a.r. people, so many of us who are doing both feminist and a.r. work are criticizing peta for these ads, refusing to support a group that's so blatantly willing to discriminate, and peta has never acknowledged that.

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

speaking of surprised

... somehow i'm not surprised either that you're linking to a jimmy kimmel video or that you don't see how that "spoof" is supporting what those who criticize peta's approach are saying. (you really don't?? how much clearer can it be spelled out that the problem with what message people are getting from the peta ad has to do with what "naked body of a certain type" means in our culture... and how peta is exploting that?)On From Population to PETA posted 2 years, 2 months ago 101 Responses

exactly

as i always say, "stripping for animal rights" is like "hunting for feminism." i mean, sure, with campaigns along those lines you may appeal to the macho, patriarchal mainstream - but how are you bringing about any real change at all? and what about the "collateral" harm you're doing? and why would such an idea occur to you in the first place?On From Population to PETA posted 2 years, 2 months ago 101 Responses

oh, come on!

yeah, well, i know when i try to prove to people that i'm healthy even though i'm vegan (!) i usually take my clothes off in slo-mo to make my point... and it works, too.

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