This blog is closed
Unemployment means being able to tell you what I think of PETA
What with the not sleeping for more than three hours at a stretch for the last two weeks and all I thought “you know, there’s no way I can respond to this definitely not-work-safe video from PETA featuring an unclothed young woman and gratuitous tortured animals with the white hot disgust it really deserves. I’ll send the link to Jill at Feministe. She’ll do a better job than I could even if I’d gotten enough sleep.“
And sure enough, she did. Go read it.
A couple of additional questions do come to mind. The woman doesn’t identify herself in the video, nor does PETA identify her beyond “sultry vegan PETA member” in their press release. While I respect her privacy, I do wonder just how the casting of the video took place. Whose idea was it? At what point did the woman become involved in the project? Is she a PETA employee? An intern? On one hand, it’s entirely possible that this woman participated in an entirely voluntary, uncoerced manner, perhaps even being paid AFTRA scale. It’s also possible that workplace coercion, or pressure to prove herself a committed activist, or some other like factor was involved.
Is this a globally broadcast incident of sexual harassment? It might not be, but only PETA can answer that question.
Posted by: Chris Clarke
Thanks, Chris—these are good points—first saw this on Feministe.
mattilda
By: By mattilda a.k.a. matt bernstein sycamore on 2007 01 27
I’m not a PETA member, and I’m not generally sympathetic to them, but in this case, I think that white-hot disgust is an overreaction.
Much of the disgust seems to be about PETA selling itself with sex, which in sexist terms means the female body and the male gaze. I can’t help but think of this as a sort of “why do those anti-war activists demonstrate under ANSWER” kind of thing. Well, because ANSWER has expertise at organizing demonstrations, and the activists rightly or wrongly would rather take an easily available course of action that they think may be effective than retain non-criticism about something that isn’t really a core part of what they in particular are being active about. The answer may well be that they’re doing it wrongly—that PETA’s recurring nudity campaign is just like the anti-war reliance on large demonstrations, a tactic that was effective at one point and that now has been mostly passed by. But I don’t care about that, because I don’t support PETA anyway. And yes, this tactic supports sexism, just as anti-war demonstrators support old-line Communism whenever they put ANSWER in the news once again, and yes, sexism is a live threat, not a mostly dead one like Communism. But I generally think that activists shouldn’t be blamed to the extent of white-hot disgust for attempting actions that don’t actually hurt people (as opposed to participating in bad media narratives).
As for the harassment idea, if the woman complains about being harassed into making the video, I’d fully support her, but absent a complaint, I don’t see the point in possible crime narratives.
By: By Rich Puchalsky on 2007 01 27
i just get really crabby when guys announce that sexism doesn’t really hurt people.
PETA’s video bothers me because it is intended to reinforce the objectification of women, which hurts all women. it is a significant disadvantage to go through one’s professional career with a good percentage of people engaged in full conversations with my breasts. or to have to bring a token man to meetings, because otherwise someone who needs to hear something just won’t listen, since women are not quite human and can’t be taken seriously.
having expressed my 2 cents, someone is sure to declare me a humorless old hag. i’m inclined to agree. i thought, somewhere back in the 1970’s, that the main battles were over, and that women would henceforth just be treated like humans. it is tiresome to see how wrong i was.
By: By kathy a on 2007 01 27
Well, disgust is very much a subjective response, and I certainly sympathize with it, but my immediate reaction was “can these people really be that fucking stupid?“. Hot Naked Chicks to “raise consciousness” about animal rights? Pamela Anderson posing topless to protest fur? “Thousands of British men agree”? Wonder what thousands of British women think.
There must be a lot of very frustrated animal rights people out there, fuming that they have to answer for this crap.
By: By Rob G on 2007 01 27
kathy a, just as you’re sure that someone is bound to call you humorless, I was sure that my distinction between “actually hurting people” and “participating in a bad media narrative” was sure to be elided, in favor of my being a guy.
The point remains: PETA isn’t really concerned with feminism. You can be mad at them for “hurting” women with their speech if you want. But activists routinely “hurt” people in the sense that you mean, including innocent bystanders, in pursuit of their goals. In the current climate, I’m willing to give a larger pass to any dissenting group rather than support the trope that they really need to shut up, for whatever reason.
By: By Rich Puchalsky on 2007 01 27
There must be a lot of very frustrated animal rights people out there, fuming that they have to answer for this crap.
This is exactly right. This grandstanding makes it harder to do activist work.
By: By Chris Clarke on 2007 01 27
kathy a, “really crabby” is a very mild response. Something that definitely disgusts and infuriates me is listening to women friends tell me what they have to put up with at work.
By: By Rob G on 2007 01 27
I’m willing to give a larger pass to any dissenting group rather than support the trope that they really need to shut up, for whatever reason.
Rich, is anyone telling them to shut up? Their methods are stupid, counter-productive, and hurtful to women. Pointing that out does not amount to telling them to shut up.
And really, how much of your willingness to give them a pass stems from the fact that they are not hurting you? That’s meant as a real question, not a shot.
By: By Rob G on 2007 01 27
Gee, wonder why they don’t have a comparable number of naked men out there? Lord knows there’s plenty of hot young buffed male pulchritude among activists these days—all those surfgods and rockclimbing studs at EII certainly added to my day when I worked there.
Not as much as the odd dine-n-dash peregrine or passing parrot flock, but.
By: By Ron Sullivan on 2007 01 27
the whole “hot naked chicks for animals” campaign theme is not exactly flattering to men, either. doesn’t it assume that your average red-blooded manly mansome man couldn’t care less about protecting animals unless there is a naked woman in the mix?
By: By kathy a on 2007 01 27
Oddly enough, I’d been thinking about PETA tactics recently with some annoyance. Maybe it was due to the trial going on here in NC, or a bit about the group in a Pretenders documentary on a DVD I just bought. In it, a PETA official describes an asinine ad campaign to be mounted upon Chrissie Hynde’s death (she’s apparently given them rights to her image post-mortem).
Anyway, this here video, which I didn’t watch in its entirety because it was stupid and boring, is a perfect illustration of my longstanding problem with the organization. It’s impossible for even me, an at least partially sympathetic person, to take them seriously because their publicity efforts seem to be so silly and self-congratulatory—“look how EDGY and CONTROVERSIAL we are!“—without any real effort to reach out to people who may be on the fence about vegetarianism, or who may be seeking usable information about living a cruelty-free life (what ever happened to PETA’s list of animal sympathetic cosmetic manufacturers?).
The choir’s convinced. Try talking to the folks outside the church.
By: By perg on 2007 01 27
Rob G, how exactly is that not supposed to be a slam? I don’t hunt down for outrage dissenting right-wing groups that use anti-Semitic tropes, as long as they aren’t participants in violence, even though I’m culturally Jewish. Is that good enough for you?
All the rest of this seems tactical, e.g., “This grandstanding makes it harder to do activist work.“ There’s nothing wrong with disagreeing with tactics, but that’s not white-hot disgust, and that’s not the potential start of yet another blog outrage cycle which predictably will lead to PETA being denounced because they’re hurting women and PETA activists replying in kind.
By: By Rich Puchalsky on 2007 01 27
=v= I was struck by the woman’s monotone. Not an iota of an activist’s passion crept into her voice, it was just dull, dull, dull recital, followed by flashing.
There have been PETA campaigns with naked and half-naked people before. I thought the lettuce ladies and broccoli boys were clever, using appetizing lettuce bikinis and a plurality of non-supermodels. I was a bit shocked at how artificialized this woman’s body was, right down to the “Brazilian wax” (as Feministe put it—yeah, I had to look it up). Clearly they’re taking their cues from the traffic in women’s bodies.
By: By Jym Dyer on 2007 01 27
Rob G, how exactly is that not supposed to be a slam?
Because it’s not. I’m pretty certain that if I were a woman, I’d feel more outraged by the imagery than I do. It is, sadly, easier to dismiss someone’s anger when you don’t share their experience. We’ve all done it, and it’s not an insult to ask someone if they’re sure that’s not the case. I don’t assume it is.
Also; you don’t have to “hunt” at all to find anti-women tropes. They’re everywhere. 24/7.
By: By Rob G on 2007 01 27
Rob G: “I’m pretty certain that if I were a woman, I’d feel more outraged by the imagery than I do. It is, sadly, easier to dismiss someone’s anger when you don’t share their experience.“
Well, Rob, I’m pretty sure that Chris is a guy. So if I “dismissed his anger”, what does that have to do with what you wrote?
As for the “24/7” bit, well, more radical than thou has never been my favorite game. There has never been an activist of any sort who was not capable of seeing affronts 24/7 if they really worked themselves up to it. I still think that the original reaction to this thing was an overreaction.
By: By Rich Puchalsky on 2007 01 27
more radical than thou has never been my favorite game.
There are two versions of that game. The other one involves berating people for getting hung up on “unimportant side-issues.“
By: By Chris Clarke on 2007 01 27
And Pippa’s response is classic blog-spat material. It works racism in as well; hey, why not?
Bonus points to the first person to link to a PETA supporting blog. Let’s see if we can get this thing going.
By: By Rich Puchalsky on 2007 01 27
Chris, I didn’t think of myself as “berating you for getting hung up on an unimportant side-issue”. For one thing, that would have to involve a main issue that I said you were getting distracted from. I don’t think that I’ve written anything like “You’d be a more effective feminist if you let this stuff slide”. What I wrote could be an example of the equally annoying civility trope, except that it’s not—I’m “defending” people who are noteably uncivil.
By: By Rich Puchalsky on 2007 01 27
Aargh. I’m too fucking old to waste energy when people insist on missing the point and reading things that I didn’t write. Alternately, I’m really lousy at making my point. Either way.
By: By Rob G on 2007 01 27
good, rob—you can come sit at the humorless old person table with me. we’re having a side-issue potluck, with special guest zeke of “WWZD” fame [scritch, scritch], followed by a round of sharing “stuff that really pisses me off, but obviously isn’t valid in the Big Scheme because someone somewhere got snarky about the freaking lifelong experience of me or other people,“ followed by the spitball competition and a singalong.
By: By kathy a on 2007 01 27
Amanda, I’d say “<rimshot>“, but that’s the one thing they didn’t put in the video.
By: By Chris Clarke on 2007 01 27
kathy, I’ll bring the vodka. And some non-alcoholic treats for Zeke.
By: By Rob G on 2007 01 27
Will Zeke be naked?
By: By Ron Sullivan on 2007 01 27
zeke will be wearing fabulous fur!
By: By kathy a on 2007 01 27
Well, Rich. That video worked out real well for PETA, huh. I mean, they’ve gotten so much support by alienating potential allies.
Maybe it’s not a big deal to you, since you don’t have to live with this shit on a day-to-day basis. You don’t have it shoved in your face. I do, and I’m fucking sick of it.
Don’t like it? Cope.
By: By Sheelzebub on 2007 01 27
The point remains: PETA isn’t really concerned with feminism. You can be mad at them for “hurting� women with their speech if you want. But activists routinely “hurt� people in the sense that you mean, including innocent bystanders, in pursuit of their goals. In the current climate, I’m willing to give a larger pass to any dissenting group rather than support the trope that they really need to shut up, for whatever reason.
As Rob G noted, no one is telling anyone to “shut up.“ But you either think dehumanizing women is wrong or you don’t, you don’t give a group “a larger pass” on it if you agree with them (which you say you usually don’t, which makes your defense of the ad stranger). Moreover, as Amanda Marcotte noted in her post about PETA, it’s a “dissenting group” in the way that an angry mob on the way to destroy the Observatory is a “dissenting group.“ And if activists routinely “hurt” people by dehumanizing them (I’m not sure what examples you have in mind), then that’s also bad. Something doesn’t become acceptable because lots of people are doing it.
Meanwhile, why wouldn’t they use buff young naked men, as Ron Sullivan asks? Aren’t most of the products against which they protest more likely to be consumed by women, anyways? Shouldn’t they be trying to get their attention?
By: By Heraclitus on 2007 01 27
I decided some time ago that PETA is a psuedo-progressive organization, emphasis on the psuedo.
PETA’s activities aren’t about convincing anyone, they’re not about winning support for its putative Cause, and (as its more egregious activities - like releasing tamed animals into hostile environments unprotected - make plain) they’re not even about the putative Cause.
What PETA is “about” is narcissism and acting out. So far from aiding what they claim to be supporting, they undermine it by indulging in these dingbat, high school-ish performance art thingummies, which disgust and alienate anyone who isn’t in the ozone along with them.
I feel the same way about other in-your-face, we-so-bad groups, like ANSWER and ELF. They’re bad for progressivism, and they’re not even effective as radicalism.
By: By CaseyL on 2007 01 27
The whole thing SUCKS. And that song offends my ears.
By: By Halfmad on 2007 01 27
spyder, mentioning that you think there are more critical issues is sassing your betters, according to Heraclitus. I wouldn’t want to sass anyone, and in any case I don’t like to give other people importance agendas. My objection to this whole thing is illustrated by the predictable path that it’s following. We’ve got ANSWER, we’ve got ELF, we’ve got the usual angry mob characterizations and the urban legend atrocity stories about dogs released to run across freeways. Start with outrage, and PETA becomes not merely annoying and counterproductive, it becomes the new model propaganda.
And for the commenters asking about why PETA doesn’t use male models and so on, could you at least wiki PETA or something? You could find lots more fun PETA facts, like “Got beer?“ In short, there is quite a coalition of groups pissed off at PETA, and it’s not accidental. You could either say that they are misogynistic and racist and just about everything else or you could say that they have a long-standing strategy that you really don’t like. The latter may be just as outrageous as the former, but at least it’s a more well-informed outrage.
By: By Rich Puchalsky on 2007 01 28
Rich, if you’ll read the comment to which I was responding, you’ll see that it called the bloggers at Feministe “kids,“ said they were “exclaiming prissily,“ and told them, “move along, nothing to see here,“ literally adopting the language of a cop directing their movement. And, yes, it’s clear to any regular reader of Feministe that the bloggers there are considerably more intelligent than this Hank fellow, so he was sassing his intellectual betters, and doing so in obviously sexist language. My comment had everything to do with tone, not with substance.
But, although I don’t think the concern trolling is automatically sassing your betters, it’s a little hard for me to be impressed by it. It is, after all, the concern troll who seems to think in terms of either/or: either you think that my pet issue is the only “critical” one, and you ignore this petty stuff (which, apparently, is still wrong, but just not worth mentioning), or you mention the petty stuff, and thereby show that your priorities are all wrong. I don’t see why being angered, even filled with white-hot disgust, at the cheap and stale objectification of women somehow precludes being angered by other, “more important,“ things.
But, I have a feeling this conversation isn’t going to go anywhere very productive, so, to each her own.
By: By Heraclitus on 2007 01 28
Aside to Rich Puchalsky:
With respect to wikipedia:p.e.t.a., I’m not seeing any explanation there by them explaining why they routinely use nude females only in their campaigns.
And, even if there was such an explanation, so what? Hefner used to go blue in the face arguing his magazine was a vehicle for empowering women. After reading about PETA, I know that the current video in question is not a departure or aberration from routine PETA stunts.
So my original negative reaction is now a slightly-better informed negative reaction.
The research you recommend is irrelevant and redundant to the original points: the video is questionable because it demeans the performer and women generally and it is ineffective as propaganda. I would go on to argue that strategically the animal rights cause is harmed by these wackos as they are treated as movement leaders instead of fringe crazies by the media.
PETA seems to be like Scientology, a celebrity-infested and secretive near-cult with a gift for attracting attention, but not much to offer for the larger society.
By: By omegapet on 2007 01 28
For the record, while I thought his comment at Feministe rather condescendingly bone-headed, Hank is a good friend, a valued commenter here, and a very intelligent person.
We will pause here for a moment while Hank says to himself “um gee, thanks for the defense, I think.“
Yeah, this conversation isn’t going much of anywhere productive, is it? It’s a bad sign when a comment thread has me thinking Michael Bérubé‘s current blog policy is the best one.
Rich, I will continue to presume the best of you. But I must say you’re coming off, throughout this thread, as quite condescending, in almost all directions. Can you grant the possibility that — given what I’ve been doing for a living for the last couple decades and all — I might have an impression of PETA that is populated by something other than Wise-Use industry-inspired rumor and urban legend? That I might have thought this through? That I might be angry at counterproductive tactics rather than political impurity or less-than-enlightened activists? That A. J Muste might have had a good point about tactics, strategy and goals?
Just a few rhetorical questions for you to ponder as I remind myself of some of the benefits of my leaving activism for a while.
By: By Chris Clarke on 2007 01 28
Watch it without the sound, and all you get is a pretty girl doing a striptease to an applauding audience of men. This helps womens rights how? Or, to get back to the subject, animal rights at all?
By: By Kitty on 2007 01 28
Oops, my bad, Chris (on being too harsh on your friend). I know you dislike the negativity that so often erupts in the leftish blogosphere, and I apologize for contributing to that here.
By: By Heraclitus on 2007 01 28
It’s a bad sign when a comment thread has me thinking Michael Bérubé’s current blog policy is the best one.
Right there with ya.
By: By Roxanne on 2007 01 28
I’m always a little puzzled when people get upset about the tactics used by groups whose ideas they oppose. I disagree with PETA, so what reaction should I *expect* to have when I see one of their political broadcasts?
To complain that the pretty girl taking her clothes off is demeaning herself or demeaning all women or somesuch is ludicrous: neither she nor PETA have any case to answer on that part. They never claimed to be on your side about Internet stripteases and you never claimed to be on theirs. A lot of women take their clothes off in front of the camera for money—use the Internet to investigate this if you don’t believe me—because two old friends named “supply” and “demand” always find a way to get together for fun and profit. Do you really have a particular concern for this woman that you never had for Jenna Jameson, or are you using her as an object to beat PETA with? Alternatively, if you *are* an anti-porn zealot, PETA is not the true focus of your ire and to complain about this is disingenuous.
Disagree with PETA because you disagree with them, not because a nice-looking girl undresses on their behalf. This heavens-to-betsy “white hot rage” stuff reeks of authoritianism and hypocrisy.
By: By ben on 2007 01 28
=v= Ben, you don’t know what you’re talking about. I can tell you that (unlike Chris) I’m vegetarian, nearly vegan, and perhaps too sentimental about animal rights, though (like Chris) tempering all that with an ecological awareness. I do not “disagree with PETA” in the way you seem to be purporting.
Yet I do feel the same white hot rage at the tactics they’re using. As I mentioned in the previous comment, I actually enjoyed some of PETA’s cute and supposedly-sexy antics (bikinis made of lettuce, yum!); but this is just awful.
Maybe instead of concocting inaccurate motivations for Chris you should pay actual attention to what he’s actually written and address them instead.
By: By Jym Dyer on 2007 01 28
Jesus christ, the assholes here are the ones throwing the chickens against the walls, the ones slitting the throats of the calves while they’re alive, the ones torturing dogs, not the ones making the video.
I am horrified, on behalf of the animals, not the courageous woman in it. Thanks for providing the link to that video.
By: By KathyF on 2007 01 28
Oh, and maybe all of you who think PETA does no good ought to watch this informative slide show. No naked women though.
By: By KathyF on 2007 01 28
If you get worked up into a white-hot anti-PETA “rage” when you see fuzzy internet video of a girl taking her clothes off, I suggest you try masturbating. Just a thought.
I refer you back to the words “authoritarianism” and “hypocrisy” as used above. If I am ever forced to choose between the two competing philosophies of vegan zealotry, I’ll pick the one where those of us who are interested can appreciate a pretty girl who isn’t wearing anything and all the rest of you are quite welcome to the one where you attend pre-lecture orientation meetings and vent your white-hot rage into your lentils whilst sitting on a fork.
Who’s the real “Operation Rescue” analogue here? Who’s been talking about this woman being exploited and demeaned—projecting their own opinions on her regardless of what she herself says? This shock-and-horror reaction is hypocrisy of the most insidious and vilest sort. A young woman takes her clothes off on the Internet and *that’s* what you’re outraged by.
By: By ben on 2007 01 28
Kathy and Ben, thanks for ignoring the larger point.
How exactly is it helping PETA’s cause to alienate the very people it’s supposed to be reaching out to?
And you know what? I’m really fucking tired of people telling me that being tired, dog-freaking-tired, of the usual hot chicks and titties. Sorry, but I’m fucking sick and tired of the usual misogynist trope, and not being a feminist organization doesn’t give PETA a free pass from criticism. So I suggest you two stop your whining.
You missed the animal rights and vegetarian folks here and in Feministe who also found the video disgusting and misogynist. You missed the orginal blogger, whose life work is the environment and animal rights, who found the video alienating.
No, please, do go on to patronize us some more and tell us how we should properly react to a video that is misogynist, and how we should overlook it because PETA’s not a feminist organization. Again, it doesn’t give them a free pass. Cope.
By: By Sheelzebub on 2007 01 28
Ben: disagree away. But treat the other commenters here with more respect than you have thus far shown, or go somewhere else.
And I would remind everyone here who may disagree with my take on PETA that this is the wrong week to insinuate that I don’t care sufficiently for the welfare of animals.
By: By Chris Clarke on 2007 01 28
Sheelzebub: Thanks for ignoring the larger point. That was my point exactly.
By: By KathyF on 2007 01 28
Orange, I just spent five years working for an organization that has, among other things, successfully kept dolphins from being deliberately killed to produce cheaper tuna nearly worldwide for the last twenty years, and to my knowledge no publicly naked women were involved in the process. So it is at least possible. Although the tuna are probably less than impressed with the accomplishment.
We did run an article last year by Winona LaDuke about the Argentinian model Dorita’s semi-clothed involvement in a campaign to protect sea turtle eggs.
(In that campaign, at least, the sexual content was “on-topic”: in Mexico, sea turtle eggs are often consumed by men as an aphrodisiac, and the catchphrase of the campaign was “my men don’t need turtle eggs.“)
By: By Chris Clarke on 2007 01 28
Aren’t there animal rights groups that don’t engage in objectionable activities one can support? Is there a handy list of them somewhere?
By: By Roxanne on 2007 01 28
Orange, that would be Danny Glover:
In a brief domestic lull in the gunfire and explosions of the Warner Brothers movie Lethal Weapon 2, the actor Danny Glover, playing a police lieutenant named Murtaugh, prepares to eat a sandwich.
“Tuna!� his family cries in unison.
Detective Murtaugh, startled, arrests his eating in mid-bite.
“We’re boycotting tuna, Honey,� explains his wife. “Because they kill the dolphins that get caught in the net.�
Murtaugh’s teenage daughter, to clue him in, points emphatically to her Earth Island Institute “Save the Dolphins� T-shirt and the dolphin gamboling across her chest. The detective unhappily withdraws the sandwich from his mouth.
— From Freeing Keiko, by Ken Brower
By: By Chris Clarke on 2007 01 28
amanda marcotte at pandagon has a thought-provoking post called, “is PETA the same group as operation rescue?“ http://pandagon.net/2007/01/27/is-peta-the-same-group-as-operation-rescue/
she concludes with some good, practical alternatives to throwing money at the evil knieval of animal rights groups, such as donating to SPCA or no-kill shelters, feral neutering programs, etc. we are huge fans of the local no-kill shelter, and volunteers with a pet rescue organization.
there are many other useful things people can do to reduce cruelty to animals [and negative environmental impacts of certain practices, too], of course. chris mentioned the earth island institute and its work to keep dolphins from being killed along with the tuna being fished. many organizations and individuals making a difference use factual information and methodical work to educate and persuade about their areas of interest, and that is what sticks, ultimately.
there are also a lot of considerations around food, which i guess was supposed to be the underlying message of the PETA video. kathy f., who commented in this thread and is a peta supporter, is actually a wonderful and gentle educator [on her blog] about the benefits of vegan food vs. the myriad problems with mass-produced, imported, and meaty food. i am not there yet, may never be completely, but information moves me in the right direction.
i really don’t believe that “progressives” or “caring people” or “smart people” are monolithic. we all have different primary interests, and there are different ways people can arrive at similar conclusions. we each have different backgrounds, obstacles, opportunities, outlooks [and also some similarities, probably]. there may be topics upon which profound friends may disagree—and that is OK, especially when we are listening to each other about what is important to the other.
i worry a lot about children who are neglected, abandoned, who witness or experience violence, kids who need a little extra help, who need someone to know they are valuable. kids who don’t get what they need during development to grow into the best humans they could be. if a child advocacy organization ran a video like PETA’s, i find it hard to believe there would be *any* defenders—even the ones who say here that groups should get a free pass for just stirring up controversy.
By: By kathy a on 2007 01 28
kathy, where do you get your anti-crabby meds? I want some. Bless you.
By: By Rob G on 2007 01 28
P.S.—i stand by my initial, crabby comment. i am among the most fortunate of women, but i will never, ever have the luxury of knowing my mind and my work are enough to make me fully human, even in the minds of many people who believe themselves progressive. there is a constant and unconscious assault on women’s integrity as full humans from all sectors, and it is far, far worse for women with fewer resources than i have. the PETA stripper show is more of the same old. so is the opinion i should just suck it up, no harm no foul.
i’m so tired. that’s why i’m on the bench, making spitwads. “all humans are humans” just shouldn’t be that hard to digest.
rob—if you find some, tell me.
By: By kathy a on 2007 01 28
kathy, this Charles Bukowski poem is the closest I’ve come to finding it;
a challenge to the dark
———————————-
shot in the eye
shot in the brain
shot in the ass
shot like a flower in the dance
amazing how death wins hands down
amazing how much credence is given to idiot forms of life
amazing how laughter has been drowned out
amazing how viciousness is such a constant
I must soon declare my own war on their war
I must hold to my last piece of ground
I must protect the small space I have made that has allowed me life
my life not their death
my death not their death…
By: By Rob G on 2007 01 28
Chris: “Can you grant the possibility that — given what I’ve been doing for a living for the last couple decades and all — I might have an impression of PETA that is populated by something other than Wise-Use industry-inspired rumor and urban legend? That I might have thought this through? That I might be angry at counterproductive tactics rather than political impurity or less-than-enlightened activists?“
Well, my first response to this didn’t show, so hopefully I’m not about to multi-comment. But yes, Chris, I assume that you know all about PETA, given your experience. Which is why I think it would have been better to give other people a bit more context and less emotion at the start. Your original post was an expression of white-hot disgust, a handoff, and a speculation that PETA used activist guilt to harass their model into stripping. (Something which remains possible, but given that they can get 1000 people to go nude for the running of the bulls, seems unlikely.) Result: a blogswarm, industry propaganda from CCF that blames all activists in a group for the actions of a few getting rehashed at Pandragon because “it’s true”, feminists cursing each other out on Feministe, round n+1 of the “PETA is to ALF as Greenpeace is to EF!“ thing. Given your stated dislike of blogspats, I don’t think that’s what you were going for.
Someone else upthread wrote that they looked up PETA, found that PETA routinely uses objectification of women as a tactic, but that this makes no difference to their reaction to this video. To me it does. If one video is outrageous, then a history of (at least) five years of them should be even more so. But that history also makes it less immediate, makes it more “why does PETA do what it does? how can we get them to stop?“ and less immediately disgusted. And therefore, less blowback on activism of all kinds.
I apologize for the lecture; it’s a bad thing for me to do. If you’d rather I didn’t comment here, I can stop.
By: By Rich Puchalsky on 2007 01 28
Given your stated dislike of blogspats, I don’t think that’s what you were going for.
Correct.
If you’d rather I didn’t comment here, I can stop.
Now you’re just being silly.
By: By Chris Clarke on 2007 01 28
Just for the record, my current blog policy is to wander around the Internets wishing my friends well. And their lovely dogs too.
By: By Michael Bérubé on 2007 01 28
KathyF, your larger point was what, exactly? That the “real” assholes were the people abusing the animals? That the people who exploit and demean women routinely aren’t assholes? Give me a break.
It shouldn’t be such a stretch for an organization to fight for its cause without shitting on women, no?
Kathy a: i am among the most fortunate of women, but i will never, ever have the luxury of knowing my mind and my work are enough to make me fully human, even in the minds of many people who believe themselves progressive. there is a constant and unconscious assault on women’s integrity as full humans from all sectors, and it is far, far worse for women with fewer resources than i have. the PETA stripper show is more of the same old. so is the opinion i should just suck it up, no harm no foul.
Word.
Frankly, as long as PETA has defenders telling any critics to just STFU and deal with it (and stop being so mean in response to to these lectures, since our concerns are so silly and trivial), they will not get supporters. Oddly enough, the folks here who are doing just that are proving my point.
By: By Sheelzebub on 2007 01 29
Thanks, Michael. Always nice to have you stop by. My lovely dog has a cold, and evil vivisecting animal hater that I am, I’m making him wait until tomorrow morning to go to the vet.
By: By Chris Clarke on 2007 01 29
Wow. An evil vivisecting animal hater, huh? I thought you were merely a self-indulgent guppy of some kind. Oh, well.
By: By Michael Bérubé on 2007 01 29
You’ve clearly been listening to the indignant penguins that used to partay in the Earth Island Journal.
By: By Chris Clarke on 2007 01 29
Sheezlebub: I’d like you to explain exactly how women were exploited and demeaned in that video. I didn’t see that at all. Do you think every woman who removes her clothes for a photographer is exploited and demeaned? Do you protest at the art gallery much?
I guess it’s like Justice Blackmun said: I know it when I see it.
By: By KathyF on 2007 01 29
This is a good one:
“You missed the animal rights and vegetarian folks here and in Feministe who also found the video disgusting and misogynist.“
I didn’t miss anything. I don’t care. Weep all you like.
By: By ben on 2007 01 29
“this is the wrong week to insinuate that I don’t care sufficiently for the welfare of animals.“
I am *NOT* taking any position about your position on the welfare of animals. That’s the whole point. Talk about the welfare of animals, I’ll agree and disagree with you as I see fit (I like animals, for what it’s worth: my childhood hero was Gerald Durrell and I’ve never been shown a reason to think differently on that). Talk about any position you have and we’ll talk about it. But tying what your position about the welfare of animals is up with how you feel about veganism and what PETA’s policies are and women taking their clothes off—this is not right. You are allowing PETA to dictate its agenda to you. Step back, and address the issues that are important to you as you see fit. I will agree with you or disagree with you as I do. But I have no time for the emotive, hysterical nonsense I’m seeing here.
And, come on, seriously, what kind of a man sees a pretty girl taking off her clothes and professes “white-hot rage”? Is this the Focus-on-the-Family Fundie Christian Closeted Meth Tweaker brigade?
By: By ben on 2007 01 29
Well, thanks for not being (righteously) pissed off at my version of Activist Lecture 2B (faux experience division), Chris.
But really, thanks for everything else. If you weren’t a good writer who had made many online friends with various exemplary pieces, no one would bother with 70 comments.
By: By Rich Puchalsky on 2007 01 29
Nice ad hominems there, ben.
But I have no time for the emotive, hysterical nonsense I’m seeing here.
Could’ve fooled me.
By: By Rob G on 2007 01 29
KathyF:
The purpose of having a striptease (love the Brazilian wax job!) “front” the video wasn’t an exploration of human flesh in and of itself. The purpose was something else entirely. Context is everything. And yeah, Blackmun was right.
By: By Roxanne on 2007 01 29
I think the purpose was to point out that treating sentient beings as commodities is wrong. The video did that in an artistic, humorous, and thought provoking way.
And Orange, please don’t patronize me. I’ve written plenty on feminist issues myself.
By: By KathyF on 2007 01 29
If the striptease didn’t mirror much of their street theater, I might avail myself to consider that was their intended message—though I would point out from an advertising/creative point-of-view that the message was very poorly executed.
Let me echo what some others have stated. PETA has some good points to make about the treatment of animals. But, they’re off the charts on many issues—domestication being a big one. And some of their activities are questionable.
There are many other animal rights organizations that engage in activities with a more positive net result and have proven track record at making change happen. That’s a much better investment of my donor dollars.
By: By Roxanne on 2007 01 29
Give me a break, KathyF. This is the same crap we see in mainstream culture all over again—women as commodities, hot babes naked or half-naked, women being equated to sex. You don’t see nearly the same level of men put out there for the female gaze, and if PETA’s “message” is truly that we shouldn’t treat sentinent beings as commodities, then one would think they’d do this with men. (It is empowering for men, no? Men should be willing to strip for the cause, no?) Don’t try to sell me the claptrap that more of the same is empowering—I ain’t buying it. More of the same is BS, and I don’t care who’s doing it.
Couple that with their ridiculous double standards in their treatment of women—fur wearing women get fake blood thrown on them, leather clad men get a free pass, female designers are harassed, male designers aren’t, Anna Wintour gets a dead raccoon on her plate when males who offend them get really angry letters, and you’ve got yourself a nice little misogyny club there.
And, come on, seriously, what kind of a man sees a pretty girl taking off her clothes and professes “white-hot rage�? Is this the Focus-on-the-Family Fundie Christian Closeted Meth Tweaker brigade?
And come on, seriously, what kind of a man expects to be taken seriously when he trots out that tired old trope? BTW, I’m not weeping, just pointing out your blindspots.
While we’re at it, would you like to bait Chris some more with your ridiculous accusations that he’s somehow just like conservative wingnuts? I mean, I’ve never heard that before. Considering the fact that he’s got years of leftist and environmental activism under his belt, you sound ridiculous. Hysterical, emotive nonsense, indeed.
As has been pointed out before, we don’t see nearly the same level of male flesh put out there for the female gaze. But do go on and ignore the larger point and continue to prove mine.
While you’re at it, continue to aspirate on your own spittle while lecturing us on how we’re being hysterical. That is rich.
By: By Sheelzebub on 2007 01 29
Wasn’t Prince Charles’ autobiography entitled “How Green Was My Valet”?
By: By Rob G on 2007 01 29
Turns out How Green Was My Valet was a Get Smart episode. From another episode;
Maxwell Smart: What are you talking about, 99? We have to shoot and kill and destroy. We represent everything that’s wholesome and good in the world.
By: By Rob G on 2007 01 29
Sheezlebub: “Couple that with their ridiculous double standards in their treatment of women—fur wearing women get fake blood thrown on them, leather clad men get a free pass, female designers are harassed, male designers aren’t, Anna Wintour gets a dead raccoon on her plate when males who offend them get really angry letters, and you’ve got yourself a nice little misogyny club there.“
You might have a point, except that none of this is true. PETA doesn’t do any of that. You have them mixed up with other organizations.
By: By KathyF on 2007 01 29
You mean PETA’s *not* the only animal-rights organization that treats women like crap?
By: By mythago on 2007 01 29
No, mythago, but they’re sure good at it.
Hat tip: Vanessa in comments to this illuminating post Jill put together at Feministe.
By: By Chris Clarke on 2007 01 29
It’s all quite true. PETA cops to it themselves. Their tactics are well documented.
Wintour, left, won’t be easily moved. In recent years, Peta have stuffed cream pies in her face, covered her in red paint, and thrown a dead raccoon at her restaurant table.
In addition, they advocate harassing women who wear fur (better hope its not fake). Odd how they don’t target bikers in leather that way—you can just download some stickers and write to some people (like with wool). PETA gets a cheesecake model to ask leather clad bikers to pretty please forgo leather. Dangling one type of meat in exchange for another.
By: By Sheelzebub on 2007 01 29
Okay, read this and tell me where it says they assaulted women with paint. The only “violent” thing I can find is once where a PETA supporter tossed a tofu cream pie at Oscar de la Renta.
As for leather, they haven’t made a leather wearing a campaign. They did stop one leather company from using inhumane sources of leather, but that’s about the extent of their activity.
As for Anna Wintour, I’d be seriously tempted to do violence to that despicable woman myself.
By: By KathyF on 2007 01 29
As for leather, they haven’t made a leather wearing a campaign.
Yes, KathyF, they haven’t, and isn’t that interesting? Think there may be some gender issues wrapped up on that choice? Surely you’re not saying a mink is more worthy of activism on its behalf than a cow.
As for Anna Wintour, pity how selective that “nonviolence” thing is when the target is a human female.
You know, I just figured out who PETA reminds me of—the Children of God.
By: By mythago on 2007 01 29
As for leather, they haven’t made a leather wearing a campaign. They did stop one leather company from using inhumane sources of leather, but that’s about the extent of their activity.
By: By Lesley on 2007 01 29
KathyF, read my freaking comment. The extent of their anti-leather campaign is to use a cheescake model to ask bikers to pretty please forgo leather.
As for throwing red paint on models, throwing red paint on Wintour, and dumping the racoon carcass in her soup, PETA has copped to it. On their own site. And they have made numerous statement about it. Again, check out the links and their own site.
Unless you’d prefer to ignore the things that are unflattering about PETA, which seems to be the case.
Isn’t it interesting that PETA’s tactics for leather and wool are different than for fur. My, my. But nope, no misogyny here, none at all.
I really don’t give a shit weather you’d want to do some violence to Wintour or not. I’m not exactly one of her fans, but I’ve got more constructive things to do than stalk her and throw racoon corpses on her food and assault her. I’m not exactly a fan of Dov Charney, George Bush (who’s responsible for thousands of Iraqi civilian and American troop deaths), or Hugh Heffner, but I don’t particularly feel the urge to hunt them down and do violence to them. Nor do I have such an urge to Ingrid Newkirk, who seems to be an asshat of the highest order when it comes to women’s issues, war-torn Iraqi’s, and the homeless.
IOW, I think these people are pretty despicable, and I still don’t justify assaulting them.
Good God. And supposedly we’re the ones being irrational. This is actually amusing now.
By: By Sheelzebub on 2007 01 29
Xopher, KathyF does exist.
Although I disagree with her on the video (and PETA), and etiquette on the site is Chris’ call, I think she deserves more respect than this.
By: By Rob G on 2007 01 30
The link Rob provides shows that the person who complained in this thread about being patronized theorizes that:
1) the reason I didn’t have the same reaction as she did to the video must be because I didn’t watch it all the way to the end, because of course there’s no way I could possibly have had reams of animal snuff porn sent to me at my place of work over the last couple decades, and that
2) people who found the video in question sexist must have done so because they’re not “ready to examine their food choices.“
This is a person who reads the site regularly, and she knows well of what my life consists right now. She knows, for instance, that I have taken a huge financial hit — the greatest in my life, in fact — in order to see to the welfare of an animal who will not live past February 16. And yet she boasts of her having written a check to PETA as evidence that her compassion for animals is greater than that of the rest of us insensitive PC thugs.
This is part of the PETA playbook: find someone you want to influence who is grieving and twist the knife. PETA boasts that its campaign against fur designer Anna Wintour — by all accounts a repulsive person — included sending flowers to her father’s funeral with a card that read, in part, “Please remember all the animals who lose their parents through the insensitivity of people who promote fur.“
I expect Kathy’s insults and knife-twisting here were not so deliberate as that atrocious act. But that’s kind of beside the point, isn’t it?
And so, Rob, etiquette on this site is not entirely my call, because I am as likely to ignore my own fine ideals when my feelings are hurt as is anyone else. I want to be better than that. I want to be more compassionate toward others than those I criticize. And so despite the fact that I’d characterize Xopher’s mockery as a misdemeanor at most — I’ve certainly done far worse in the last month and less amusingly — I thank you for stepping up to the plate while I’m distracted.
Because it’s one thing to tell someone to fuck off, and it’s another thing to diminish that person’s humanity.
By: By Chris Clarke on 2007 01 30
Does it diminish someone’s humanity to call them a fool? Or to guess that they may be very young?
Well, perhaps my phraseology in that last was a bit imprecise. I don’t think you did diminish her humanity by mocking her.
By: By Chris Clarke on 2007 01 30
I’m actually not paying any attention whose nonsense I’m replying to, or what your screen names on this particular website are—comments about who is being “baited” and what constitutes an “ad hominem” attack are misguided, I’m looking at the text posted and responding to that. If you want to carry water for anyone, that’s fine, but there’s nothing ad hominem here—I don’t know who you are, I just know what I’m reading. The important points are:
1: You continue to debate PETA’s tactical decisions from outside the organization. This is a futile and counterproductive thing to do. You may imagine that you’re outside their tent pissing in—actually, you’re inside yours and the door’s closed.
2: I seriously wonder how seemingly intelligent and cosmopolitan people can profess to be so virulently *angry* about the concept of people taking their clothes off, for whatever reason.
By: By ben on 2007 01 31
I’m actually not paying any attention whose nonsense I’m replying to,
People who admit to trolling get banned around here. So long, Ben.
By: By Chris Clarke on 2007 01 31
PETA has put their foot in it many times and yet they still do some really good work. I don’t really care if they fuck up now and then, and I certainly wouldn’t let their fucking up change my values and principles. That’s like saying because the Red Cross gave thousands of people HIV through tainted blood (this happened in Canada) that we should abandon giving blood altogether.
Regardless of what PETA does or doesn’t do right, animals are still out there suffering. That’s what matters. And anyway, there are so many other agencies and organizations advocating for animal rights, why give PETA all the credit?
When I hear a human rant against PETA for putting animal suffering above human suffering I want to scream, because surely we have the capacity to care for ourselves and other species AT THE SAME TIME. (I sincerely hope we do at this late dire hour.)
If our capacity for love and compassion is limited, it’s because we think it is. It doesn’t have to be. Maybe it’s convenient, though. Gets us out of some moral jams.
It’s true there are a zillion worthy causes and no single human being can devote him or herself to every one of them. But if a person can pick one or two or a few and be committed, that person should be applauded. At least they are doing something worthwhile.
How many millions of people do fuck all for anyone, human or animal? Plenty.
I do a lot of advocacy work for captive elephants and I hear this all the time…“Humans are suffering, shouldn’t you put them first?“ Well see, I used to think my love was limited, but really, it isn’t. My time and my finances are limited, but my compassion is limitless. What makes someone care about anything is the amount of knowledge they have about it and their attachment to it. Know an animal or a person and it’s not easy to turn away.
Sure, if we’re pressed we have to make choices. I’ve had to make choices, too. But this post is saying because PETA fucked up we should just throw the baby out with the bath water and go eat a burger. That’s just silly.
If we can help anyone, whether it has four legs or two, or no legs at all, that’s a good thing. I hope. PETA or no PETA.
By: By Lesley on 2007 02 06
My horror around this kind of clip is that everybody who links to it is participating in the exploitation willy-nilly and thus both furthering PETA’s agenda (whether the linker thinks they agree with that agenda or no), and is ultimately simply pointing at a woman in the nuddy. I don’t need to see it, so why is it getting such publicity? What became of the woman musician who stripped at a football game? I didn’t see that one either, but it was indeed all over the web too. I’d be interested about whether the musician’s handlers - exploiters succeeded in their aims. What were their aims?
My horror is at the vortex of the glass tit - from which nobody, once clamped on, escapes.
Right now, I’m seeing it overwhelm someone who’s sharing my house.
May I point angrily at us all?
Jill at Feministe nearly got to the meat of the argument but veered away both before recognising the basic agenda of PETA and before acknowledging that advertising is Capital incarnate, and as such will always embody the misogyny that the Patriarchy stands for.
The audience for woman-friendly ads is not there because the audience for the worldwide wacky web, or mainstream television and its deformed litter-mate, the glossy magazine, is not feminist.
There’s no doubt that Chris hates PETA like the devil.
I look forward to a little more exposure of the reasons for that hate besides deploring a clever nasty viral marketing technique that’s been co-opted from the armory of successful spin doctoring by other organisations, and for which the audience is clearly not around the liberal left wacky worldwide web.
Or is it?
Maybe when he’s feeling more up to it.
Meanwhile, from all that I can see, PETA is a rich (read “successful”) private corporation, and is acting entirely in character; anyone who identifies with the PETA brand now will have a hard time teasing out the Madison ave mind games from whatever they themselves have really understood to be PETA’s product.
By: By darkymac on 2007 02 06
Categories:
