Comments BruceGFriedrich has made

  • 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, 2 months ago 101 Responses

  • 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, 2 months ago 101 Responses

  • 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, 2 months ago 101 Responses

  • 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, 2 months ago 101 Responses

  • 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, 2 months ago 101 Responses

  • Addendum:


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

  • PETA PETA, not a Meat Eata.

    I'm sorry, but when you say "anyway i'd be pretty surprised if the official response acknowledged this in any way" what exactly is the "this" to which you refer?

    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 www.ThistlewoodPress.com.

    Respectfully,

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

  • BTW, here's Jimmy Kimmel's spoof version:


    http://youtube.com/watch?v=CeaP05YM2io
    On From Population to PETA posted 2 years, 2 months ago 101 Responses

  • PETA is a feminist organization.

    Anyone can disagree, of course, but PETA's President, Executive VP, and Senior VP for communications are feminists (and female), and they disagree that using sex appeal to focus on a message is exploitative.

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

  • Thanks for the Alicia shout out.

    Learn more about the Alicia advert (and see the print versions) at www.PETA.org. On From Population to PETA posted 2 years, 2 months ago 101 Responses

  • The comments on here really are so over the top.

    But Biodiversivist, your first comment was the first negative comment, and it was so mean-spirited and judgemental, from the subject line.

    I can see "What about hunting?" as a very legitimate question, etc., and generally, these discussions can be had without attacking one another.

    But you opted to attack, which I think set the tone for the rest of the posts.

    I do agree with the poster who said that you do great stuff--if you're Blogging here, I'm sure you do, and I guess this issue just set you off...On PETA VP argues vegetarianism is the best way to help the planet posted 2 years, 2 months ago 77 Responses

  • Eating meat is bad for the environment.

    Sigh.

    Boy did I call it when I wrote:
    If the past is any guide, this essay will generate much hand-wringing from my meat-eating environmentalist colleagues and, sadly, some anger. They will prefer half-measures (e.g., meat that is "not as bad" as other meat). They may accuse PETA of being judgmental -- simply for presenting the evidence. They will make various arguments that are beside the point. They will ignore the overwhelming argument against eating animal products and try to find a loophole.

    Russ Finley (biodiversivist) does all these things and more. He even goes so far as to accuse me of bad motivation, of doing damage control. And he challenges me to a dual! What he doesn't bother to do is reply to any of my arguments. Okay, he replies to the global warming argument, but in deeply specious way, putting up charts that (obviously) don't refute my argument, and not even bothering to try to explain why he thinks they do.

    I emailed him privately a few days ago but have gotten no response (though he's been posting on here since then). In addition to giving him my phone number and noting that his personal attack and assumption of bad motivation was hard to understand, I wrote:

    Your chart doesn't include personal choices and doesn't account for the massive amount of CO2 generated in all the extra stages (power & transport, especially) of meat production; you don't even attempt to address this very basic point, which is curious, considering the extremely negative and defensive tone of your response. You also ignore all the rest of the problems from the U.N. report, noted in my piece. Although the U.N. report does not explicitly advocate veganism (it is written by people who support animal agriculture in the developing world and eat meat themselves), environmentalists can make choices not to consume gluttonously, which is what meat-eating represents in the developed world.

    You also attribute my motivation to "damage control," even though you didn't bother to call or email me (I am remarkably easy to find) or to in any other way check to see whether that might be my motivation. In fact, my motivation is to point out that eating meat entails making a highly consumptive and polluting choice, and for no good reason.

    Your piece stands in stark contrast to two other Grist posters:

    Umbra:
    http://www.grist.org/advice/ask/2007/09/17/index.html

    David Roberts:
    http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/9/16/174625/254

    I also agreed to his carbon footprint challenge, which, sadly true to form (i.e., the rest of his posts), he issued in a defensive and childish way.

    And in a subsequent email I asked:
    And what do you make of the Live Earth Global Warming Handbook saying that "refusing meat" is "the single most effective thing you can do to reduce your carbon footprint."

    Cheers,

    Bruce
    On PETA VP argues vegetarianism is the best way to help the planet posted 2 years, 2 months ago 77 Responses