Jump to content

Large-scale protest against PETA for torture & exploitation!


vivalasvegans
 Share

Recommended Posts

I am sorry but that was the most retarded thing I have ever fucking seen, forced these woman, are you kidding me, yeah that money really forces em to put animals against their skin.

and all the protesters I know locking themsefs in cages are volunteers against animal cruelty who VOLUNTEER to do such things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I usually like The Onion but that was just ridiculous. I tend to find it funnier when they say something that's true or could be true in a funny way, rather than just say things that are completely false. I think the former takes a lot more talent and wit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone here is aware that womens' rights groups DO protest Peta for how they use women in their ads, right? The Onion IS parodying a real news story...

 

Obviously PETA doesn't force women to appear in their ads. They do it of their own free will. The women's groups protest that PETA uses sex to bring attention to their point, not that they mistreat women.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it's sexism. The president of PETA is a female as are some of its supporters/workers/volunteers. They've had a few naked men in their campaigns but not as many, the reason being that men are more likely to respond to sexual cues than women. Because of this you'll tend to see more naked women anywhere you go, not just in PETA ads; it's marketing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it's sexism. The president of PETA is a female as are some of its supporters/workers/volunteers.

 

People who belong to groups that are looked at though prejudged views, can also have prejudicial views, even about the demographics they belong to.

 

Yes, I am aware. Please see the remainder of my post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it's sexism. The president of PETA is a female as are some of its supporters/workers/volunteers.

 

People who belong to groups that are looked at though prejudged views, can also have prejudicial views, even about the demographics they belong to.

 

Yes, I am aware. Please see the remainder of my post.

 

I think that what some people are getting at is, just because PETA is run by Ingrid doesn't mean that some of their campaigns can't be viewed as sexist by those who take offense. It's much like the discussion we had here once a long time back where someone claimed that minorities can't be racist because they're the ones viewed as oppressed - it's false logic used to justify using something that others may deem offensive. Women can feed into sexism toward other women the same as men can - simply being a woman-run group doesn't exclude that possibility. I'll leave it at that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The most precise way to describe Ingrid's sexism, if one were wishing to point out that Ingrid's supporting a sexist campaign is sexism, would be to say she has internalized sexism. The same dynamic having to do with a person belonging to an oppressed race is internalized racism.

 

One could make the case that such PETA campaigns are sexist because they perpetuate the objectification of women. One could also argue that PETA is just flexing its sense of humor with these campaigns. However PETA does not have a sense of humor.

 

But The Onion does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The most precise way to describe Ingrid's sexism, if one were wishing to point out that Ingrid's supporting a sexist campaign is sexism, would be to say she has internalized sexism. The same dynamic having to do with a person belonging to an oppressed race is internalized racism.

 

One could make the case that such PETA campaigns are sexist because they perpetuate the objectification of women. One could also argue that PETA is just flexing its sense of humor with these campaigns. However PETA does not have a sense of humor.

 

But The Onion does.

 

Personally I love PETA; they've done a lot of good for animals. And if they've shown some naked women in the process, so be it. The Onion may have a sense of humor (I should hope so, they are a comedy newspaper after all) but they haven't really done much for the world other than provide entertainment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
The most precise way to describe Ingrid's sexism, if one were wishing to point out that Ingrid's supporting a sexist campaign is sexism, would be to say she has internalized sexism. The same dynamic having to do with a person belonging to an oppressed race is internalized racism.

 

One could make the case that such PETA campaigns are sexist because they perpetuate the objectification of women. One could also argue that PETA is just flexing its sense of humor with these campaigns. However PETA does not have a sense of humor.

 

But The Onion does.

 

I wouldn't even try to work out the "internalized sexism" day to day. Some women are sexists, some minorities are racists.

 

Matter of fact, those are some of the most problematic groups when it comes to sexism and racism! They legitimize these things to people who are looking for a legitimating force.

 

That said, I've heard that PETA's sexist campaigns generate a lot of interest from the public in vegetarianism. I'm a consequentialist, so I don't have a big problem with that. If they can find a mainstream way to achieve these ends that is not so oppressive then that's optimal, but I've heard some great things generated from them.

 

For instance, one could say that animal rights campaigns require the transfer of capital and the employment of wage labor, therefore they support capitalism. Should we not wage animal rights campaigns because capitalism necessarily oppresses? We have to weigh the consequences.

 

To me, simply saying "I have principles I will not, under any circumstances, violate" is very simplistic and counter-productive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it does not bother me either, although I dont fully support it; I mean, in a perfect world, it would be better if they can find other ways than showing nude women... do they show nude men too and do people complain? they should show nude men too, women would like it, and men wouldn't complain. The feminist groups protesting against Peta with the slogan : ''Peta is against exploitation of animals but they exploit women'', I'm pretty sure most of the women that are part of these groups are against the exploitation of women but they exploit animals by eating meat, so they are not better than those they are pointing their finger at.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it does not bother me either, although I dont fully support it; I mean, in a perfect world, it would be better if they can find other ways than showing nude women... do they show nude men too and do people complain? they should show nude men too, women would like it, and men wouldn't complain.

 

Well, to be fair, showing men naked is not the same as showing women naked. Unfortunately we live in a horribly sexist culture where men are not nearly as reduced to and limited by their physical presentation as men are.

 

The feminist groups protesting against Peta with the slogan : ''Peta is against exploitation of animals but they exploit women'', I'm pretty sure most of the women that are part of these groups are against the exploitation of women but they exploit animals by eating meat, so they are not better than those they are pointing their finger at.

 

This is true, but it's just an ad-hominem attack; it doesn't address the real issue, which is how do we decide what is acceptable.

 

It is often touted that one should not compare suffering or use one kind of suffering to reduce another. In the human world I can see how this would cause more problems than it solves. But when one looks at the sheer numbers, the sheer domination, you can't fairly say that the exploitation of women, especially in the first world, is in any way comparable to the suffering of animals.

 

And I say this as an ardent feminist, who is fairly passionate about womens' equality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But when one looks at the sheer numbers, the sheer domination, you can't fairly say that the exploitation of women, especially in the first world, is in any way comparable to the suffering of animals.

 

And I say this as an ardent feminist, who is fairly passionate about womens' equality.

I agree; despite sexism in general (physical and psychological violence, denigration, better salary for men, the horrible treatment to women in middle-east, etc), its still less than the endless extermination and exploitation of animals. But anyways, we cannot even compare the 'exploitation' of women for Peta that choose to go in a cage for a few hours voluntarily or to be naked in the street, with women violently raped or victim of sexism. Fundamentaly, being naked is natural, and the women that do this for Peta don't think it is wrong. So its kinda ridiculous to say Peta exploits women, which is why The Onion made a joke about it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But anyways, we cannot even compare the 'exploitation' of women for Peta that choose to go in a cage for a few hours voluntarily or to be naked in the street, with women violently raped or victim of sexism.

 

I would argue that putting women naked on the street (and on bilboards, in magazines, etc) the way we do is a big part of what fuels violent rape. The idea of woman is perpetuated as being something it's OK to rape.

 

Fundamentaly, being naked is natural, and the women that do this for Peta don't think it is wrong. So its kinda ridiculous to say Peta exploits women, which is why The Onion made a joke about it.

They are not being naked because it's natural, they are being naked because it gets attention from sexist men. Exploitation/objectification occurs even if the exploited party agrees to it. This goes back to my frustration with chauvinist females.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That said, I've heard that PETA's sexist campaigns generate a lot of interest from the public in vegetarianism. I'm a consequentialist, so I don't have a big problem with that. If they can find a mainstream way to achieve these ends that is not so oppressive then that's optimal, but I've heard some great things generated from them.

Have you? The only reaction I have ever seen to PETA's 'stunts' has been and anger. I hear from so many people who can't stand PETA. And unfortunately, some people see all animal activists and vegans in a negative light because of their feelings about PETA.

 

I do think that PETA does some good things that get people thinking, like Meet Your Meat and other videos and straightforward information. Their stunts and ad campaigns like 'save the whales' do seem to get a lot of media attention, but the reactions I have seen to them have been almost universally negative, which makes these approaches counterproductive.

 

I completely, utterly disagree with the idea that using sexist imagery or otherwise being offensive to groups of humans is OK as long as it helps animals. (Ignoring for now my opinion that it actually does nothing at all to help animals.) It's not OK to be crap to humans to help animals. It not like the only way to help animals is to make sexist or offensive ads. You can help animals without relying on that crap, so as they have a choice, the better, more ethical one, is clearly to help animals without demeaning humans. Wanting to help animals is not an excuse or justification for letting regard of fellow humans fly out the window.

 

And, yes, women can be sexist. Women can make mistakes. Just because a woman does something 'of her own free will' does not mean that it was the right thing to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...