My PETA Pet Peeve

As an Orthodox Jew, I have to be against animal cruelty. There is a concept in the Torah called tzar ba'alei chayim which prohibits causing pain to a living creature. However, just because I'm against torturing animals doesn't mean that I am pro-PETA.

Here's the question of the day:  How can an organization that fights so adamantly against the exploitation of animals turn around and exploit women in the name of anti-animal exploitation? See for yourself. (Or don't--WARNING: scantily clad women in all three links).

It's not just the nudity that has me all worked up here. It's portraying women as sex kittens (no pun intended) - using their sexuality to make the sale - that I find so disturbing. Interestingly enough, the one naked man that they feature on their site, as you'll see, is not portrayed in a sexy way, but in a silly, over-the-top, humorous way. So is that the message they want us to take home? Men are marketable for their sense of humor, but women only for their sex appeal?

PETA, if you're reading this, I have two things to say to you: One - just because public nudity is appropriate for animals doesn't mean it's appropriate for humans. And two - using a woman's sexuality to advance your agenda is not exactly ethical.

Comments

[Grace]

Have you seen the ad campaign where they compare chicken farms to the Holocaust?

PETA has never cared about the welfare of humans. That's the really sick thing. They would rather rescue a bunch of lab rats, than ever see a cure for cancer or AIDS. Reasoning with them is like reasoning with the moon. You can't reach them, they are too far removed from reality (and from humanity).

[Nancy the Romancechick]

It's always amazed me that these same people who are militantly against cruelty to animals are also pro-choice and think killing babies is fine and "a woman's right."

[Sarah]

A quote from the Alicia Silverstone article:

"Once I went vegan, I lost the weight I wanted to lose, my nails were stronger, and my skin was glowing."

Not only does this sound like an infomercial, but it still doesn't explain why she took her clothes off. If the best things about her going vegan were her nails and her skin, couldn't we have just seen a shot of her skinny arm holding a boca burger?

Gross.

[Andrea McQuade]

PETA has always had extremely conflated ethic s- they essentially put the life of animals over and above the wellbeing, both mental and physical, of humans, by using ethics intended for the protection of self-realizing and interested human BEINGS. From a philosophical perspective they are just a categorical error. From an day to day perspective their a wolf in snake skin boots. Check out the awesome show "Bullshit" and their expose on Peta. It's a laugh and a half.. and scary too.

[Ken]

Unfortunately, Allison, PETA only cares about PETA. PETAns are True Believers, their Cause so Righteous it justifies any evil to bring it about. You can never smash too many eggs when you're making The Perfect Omelette. So has it been for Enlightened and Anointed Activists, ever since the French Revolution, through the First Russian Revolution, to the present.

And a lot of PETAns are in the same boat as Furry Lifestylers; they don't love animals as much as they just Hate Humans. And will do anything to stick it to them.

(Check the South Park episode "Douche and Turd" for Parker & Stone's sendup of PETAns. "She's... Ovulating....")

Andrea: Did Penn & Teller recommend you "push them down the nearest flight of stairs", the same as for 9/11 Truthers?

[Ken]

After posting the above, I found & watched the Penn & Teller segment on YouTube. It flashed a memory from an old YahooGroups list (Christian Furry) I was on years ago.

It was a series of postings by a list member who was a hostler for a horse-carriage tour company in some downtown area. Said hostler said they had continuing problems with PETA sabotaging their carriages and even trying to poison their horses under the Righteous Rationale that the animals were better dead than "in slavery". The latter was echoed by other list members involved with animal rescue organizations; they had to guard against PETAns trying to poison their rescued animals in the Name of Animal Liberation.

But, hey, before Hugo Chavez came on the trendoid scene, PETA was what was tres chic! among all these CELEBRITIES!

"Life isn't Disney BS, where lions, pigs, and meerkats hang out together and sing songs." -- Penn & Teller

[Linda R.]

Not only is the male ad "silly" as you say, but his comments aren't the most on-target either. PETA says he said this comment "perfectly": "Abuse yourself all you want," he says, "just leave animals out of it. Don't wear fur." I know what he is getting at (especially since he is a stuntman of sorts), but if you are promoting the dignity of innocent animals, all the more reason to promote the dignity of humans, too! They go together! These celebrities fail to see how dignity runs across the board.

[Ken]

These celebrities fail to see how dignity runs across the board.

With one notable exception. (Guess who?)

[Grace Leigh]

"It's always amazed me that these same people who are militantly against cruelty to animals are also pro-choice and think killing babies is fine and 'a woman's right.'"

Excellent point, and quite an ironic one at that. How anyone can fight so adamantly for animal rights yet completely disregard the value in human life is beyond me. Supporting and respecting human life would only enhance the animal rights cause, as it would elevate the concept of life in general. The fact that this connection is not made by many PETA supporters hints at an ulterior motive.

[M. Landers]

The point about PETA/pro-choice seems an unfair one. I'm not particularly fond of either PETA or abortion, but the failure to recognise that pro-choice is a different stance on when life begins and therefore is not about the value of life itself is a failure to actually listen to the beliefs and viewpoints of those whom you oppose. To value the life of an animal but not the life of a human is a conflict. To value the life of an animal and to disagree that a fetus constitues a full human life is another matter entirely.

[Ruthor Lex]

I usually agree with M. Landers but I disagree here. PETA goes out of its way to tell us that ants and fish feel pain based on science. Well from a medical standpoint so do fetuses when they're aborted. That's been proven. They try to move away from the abortionist and "hide" in the womb when their limbs are being removed but there is no escape. That's all been proven (that fetuses feel pain and try to move away from the abortionist). So why do the feelings of fish matter but not fetuses? That is a big contradiction in my book.

[Jacob Stein]

I guess PETA feels this is a question of pikuach nefesh, so everything is permitted.

I am not sending them my photo.

[Howard Veit]

The sales efforts I hate more than anything are the ones that use children to hawk whatever s--t is out there. Children. Babies. Infants. I hate those commercials and won't buy what they offer if I can help it. I particularly hate it when some "mom" uses her kid for a political thing. Kids as instruments for the profit of others does't sit right with me for some reason.

[Ken]

"It's always amazed me that these same people who are militantly against cruelty to animals are also pro-choice and think killing babies is fine and 'a woman's right.'"

Like I said above, PETAns don't love animals so much as they Hate Humans.

[Jennie Chancey]

This isn't a comment on this blog post, so no need to post it. I just wanted to send a link that came through my Google news feed today (I have a feed on modesty issues). I was utterly stunned to see what British television considers "serious" entertainment -- women baring it all during prime-time television. Here's the story: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/showbiz/showbiznews.html?in_article_id=492537&in_page_id=1773

I thought Wendy or another blogger might comment on this. The US can't be far behind on this slippery slope. All the more reason I am glad our TV is unplugged and we have better things to do!

[Priya]

If you choose to become a vegan or vegetarian for reasons of self interest ( ie: better hair or nails ) then I really think you are better to work on yourself. Here is a post ( by my Dad, yes I am biased !) that I think is relevant to the ridiculous notion that being pro-animal kindness is a sex marketable commodity...
http://contemplatingshiva.blogspot.com/2006/07/vegetarianism-and-awakening-of-loving.html

[Priya]

Thanks Jennie Chancey for posting this link, whatever you say about Trinny and Susannahs taste in clothes their taslessness and crudeness ( not to mention bullying tactics ) have made them boycottable by me - it just shows the route that the media in general seem to be racing down these days.....Why can't people just give good fashion advice???

[Jayme]

There are several implications within this post and its subsequent comments that I feel need to be addressed.

First, there seems to be an excessive amount of dislike for PETA, and perhaps rightly so. PETA has perpetrated the mass slaughter of homeless animals and has also used excessive and often inappropriate tactics against people they feel violate animal ethics. For such reasons as these, I, as a animal-welfare advocate and vegetarian, do NOT actively "support" PETA, as I am sure you will find is the case for a majority of animal-welfare/rights activists. It is important than not to conflate the one with the other.

Second, there seems to be some implied correlation being made between nudity and immorality. While I agree that many times nudity is used in an unethical way (i.e. it is not within an appropriate context) there are also occasions when nudity can be quite effective. In this campaign “Rather Go Naked Than Wear Fur”, nudity is an effective means of symbolism, correlating skin with fur, and compelling the viewer to identify with the vulnerability of animals. Alicia Silverstone's advertisement is actually very tastefully done. Yes she is nude. It's natural! It's the point! How much of this assumed sexuality then is assigned because of her gender? Is there a way in which her nudity could have been depicted that would have been more appropriate? Or is nudity the issue? If so, than the issue is bigger than PETA. It is an issue with history. It is an issue with art. It is an issue with the human body.

Lastly, there are several parallels being made between killing animals and abortion. I have to agree with M. Landers – these are two entirely different issues. I agree that to value an animal’s life and not that of a human’s is irrational. But I also find it irrational that someone can value the “life” of a fetus and not recognize the life of an independently living and breathing animal. Nonetheless, as M. Landers puts it so eloquently, “To value the life of an animal and to disagree that a fetus constitutes a full human life is another matter entirely.”

Additionally, in response to Grace’s accusation that “They would rather rescue a bunch of lab rats, than ever see a cure for cancer or AIDS” I would like to quote C.S. Lewis: “Vivisection can only be defended by showing it to be right that one species should suffer in order that another species be happier … If we cut up beasts simply because they cannot prevent us and because we are backing our own side in the struggle for existence, it is only logical to cut up imbeciles, criminals, enemies, or capitalists for the same reasons.”

Other relevant quotes:

Atrocities are not less atrocities when they occur in laboratories and are called medical research. – George Bernard Shaw

You have just dined, and however scrupulously the slaughterhouse is concealed in the graceful distance of miles, there is complicity. – Ralph Waldo Emerson

But for the sake of some little mouthful of flesh we deprive a soul of the sun and light, and of that proportion of life and time it had been born into the world to enjoy. – Plutarch

The animals of the world exist for their own reasons. They were not made for humans any more than black people were made for white, or women created for men. – Alice Walker

Auschwitz begins wherever someone looks at a slaughterhouse and thinks: they're only animals. – Theodor Adorno

[Jayme]

Not only does this sound like an infomercial, but it still doesn't explain why she took her clothes off. If the best things about her going vegan were her nails and her skin, couldn't we have just seen a shot of her skinny arm holding a boca burger?

To reduce Alicia's comments to a narrow clip and biased quip is a complete misrepresentation. Alicia stated the physical benefits she experienced being vegan and went on to say: "I feel physically and spiritually better than I could have ever imagined knowing that I am doing everything I can to reduce animal suffering with simple lifestyle choices like being vegan, never wearing any products made from animals (like wool and leather), and buying only from companies that NEVER test their products or ingredients on animals."

To criticize Alicia’s methods of politicization and then manipulate the context for your own biased quips seems hypocritical.

[Hannah]

The PETA culture and sex nation are symbols of how this world is a distorted misguided place. (I just finished Girls Gone Mild- thank you, Wendy!).

The Talmud warns about misplaced kindness: How if one shows mercy or compassion for the Cruel, s/he will become cruel to the compassionate (the innocent). You may feel that this an extreme comment , but history has proven it.

Consider the Holocaust (I am a history major, concentrating on the Holocaust)- those civilian Germans, Poles, Austrians, etc. who did not speak out against Hitler in the 1930's ; showed sympathy or agreement with evil. These same people evolved into Hitler Youth, SA, SS and the Gestapo- who became so very talented at mass murder, torture, death marches, baby slaughtering, burning people alive, and killing children in front of their parents.
I recently watched a documentary of Lithuanian Jews who survived the Holocaust.One particular man's story was most frightening- on a snowy dismal day, after walking in the countryside, living in hiding, he came across a church. The teenage boy ran up to the door and begged the church caretaker (minister?) to let him stay the night. But the man refused, the boy cried, and the man screamed at him to leave. A couple of moments later the man shuffled out to herd in some stray dogs. The dogs were more precious to this cruel individual than a human life.

Oh, and you know how Hitler was a vegetarian? He loved animals and dogs. I, too, love dogs and animals, but I love human beings more.

I wish for a time when human beings are valued for their talent, accomplishment, personality, and inner beauty instead of trying to keep up in a world of pornography and animal rights.

[Allison]

Thanks for your comments, Jayme. I just want to address the one issue that you brought up about what I specifically wrote. You didn't see Alicia Silverstone's ad to be problematic because you described it as "tasteful". It's true, it's not a raunchy display of nudity, but like I explained in my blog, it wasn't the nudity itself that had me worked up as much as the using women for their sexuality. I just copied this from the video description of Alicia's video: "Alicia Silverstone’s Sexy Veggie PSA. Sexy Hollywood star Alicia Silverstone bares all in PETA’s first-ever naked veggie testimonial PSA. Watch Alicia’s sexy video..." Lets count how many "sexy's" there are in those few short sentences.

I was expressing the fact that it seems exploitative to women to reduce them to sexual creatures to prevent animals from being exploited, while the one man they feature naked is looked at as over-the-top and silly. What this implies to me is that no normal, self-respecting man takes his clothes off - only crazy, wild, streaker types, like Steve O. Having women pose naked, however, and PETA has many of them, conversely becomes a very normal, totally natural thing for a woman to do and maybe even strive for as it's conflated with sexiness and sexiness seems to be the greatest thing a woman can attain nowadays.

[Ken]

Hannah:

I am waiting for the day PETA gives an award to Sturmbannfuehrer Doktor Josef Mengele for *not* using animals in his experiments at Auschwitz. This would be entirely "in-character" for PETA as has been discussed in this thread.

The idea also has potential as a hoax media release to discredit PETA...

Oh, and you know how Hitler was a vegetarian? -- Hannah

That was the title of an oldie I heard occasionally on Doctor Demento years ago, "Hitler Was a Vegetarian". The song started with a spoken intro (from memory):

"There are many valid reasons for becoming a vegetarian. Parading your Moral Superiority isn't one of them."

"To value the life of an animal but not the life of a human is a conflict. To value the life of an animal and to disagree that a fetus constitues a full human life is another matter entirely."

Actually, it is not another matter entirely, Grace L. Peter Singer, holder of the Ira W. DeCamp chair of bioethics at Princeton University, committed animal rights activist and advocating vegan would disagree with your position. According to Dr. Singer, both humans and animals possess consciousness that gives them the capacity to feel pain or to experience pleasure. Singer equates the ability of humans and animals to suffer or enjoy certain experiences with their quality of life. Logically, then, those people or animals who suffer more than others have less quality-of-life. Taking it one step further, people who don't possess a sufficiently developed consciousness fall below the plane of personhood or are 'non-humans' (because of their decreased capacity for enjoyment) while some higher functional animal species are practically human. His litmus test for valuing a life (human or animal) is not nature or species membership, but their level of consciousness.

In Singer's view, a pre- or sub-conscious human cannot suffer as much as a conscious animal. Traditionally when we've dealt with animals we've cared primarily about their quality of life. We 'put down' our suffering pets if they've become terribly old and sick to spare them needless suffering. If we apply the same standards to human 'animals' and set aside our quaint and outdated notions about the 'sanctity' of human life, our unease with killing those who are pre-conscious (like the unborn), sub-conscious (like those with developmental disabilities or in vegetative states) or suffering (like those with terminal diseases) will begin to dissolve. To sum up Singer's view: it's all one continuum with consciousness being the key. As long as animals aren't 'suffering' or of diminished consciousness, it makes perfect sense that their rights would (and should) be promoted over that of a human fetus whose consciousness has not yet developed.

Ironically--Dr. Singer's parents were Holocaust survivors.

[Jayme]

Having women pose naked, however, and PETA has many of them, conversely becomes a very normal, totally natural thing for a woman to do and maybe even strive for as it's conflated with sexiness and sexiness seems to be the greatest thing a woman can attain nowadays.

Thanks Allison. I did note your statement on nudity and so my comment was not directly addressed to you, but included some of the comments as well. I do agree with you. There are other nude ads that PETA has promoted that I thought were too "sexed"... as is also the case of many animal-rights movements that utilize nudity without any applicable context. You do bring up an excellent point regarding gender roles, both corporately constructed as well as those popularly perceived.

[Jayme]

As long as animals aren't 'suffering' or of diminished consciousness, it makes perfect sense that their rights would (and should) be promoted over that of a human fetus whose consciousness has not yet developed.

What an extraordinarily interesting philosophy. My concern (other than the obvious disregard for an ideal of "soul") would be in regards to the term 'suffering' - I suppose this is in reference to the conscious states e.g. "developmental disabilities or in vegetative states" versus imposed suffering?

[MEC]

I am completely in agreement with you! How can people care more about animals than human beings? It makes no sense. I once saw a bumber sticker that read
PETA: People Eating Tasty Animlas =)

[Luthor Rex]

"If we apply the same standards to human 'animals' and set aside our quaint and outdated notions about the 'sanctity' of human life, our unease with killing those who are pre-conscious (like the unborn), sub-conscious (like those with developmental disabilities or in vegetative states) or suffering (like those with terminal diseases) will begin to dissolve. To sum up Singer's view: it's all one continuum with consciousness being the key. As long as animals aren't 'suffering' or of diminished consciousness, it makes perfect sense that their rights would (and should) be promoted over that of a human fetus whose consciousness has not yet developed."

The problem with this position has always been that it would actually take a human child a few years to develop the kind of consciousness required to be morally considered a 'person'. Thus, infanticide would be o'tay! up until maybe 3 or 4 years old.

Aside from that, in regards to PETA in general... well, just because you can't hear the carrot scream doesn't mean it wants you to eat it. Penn & Teller's episode of "B.S." did a good job of smacking around PETA.

[Lizanne]

Actually, Luthor, Dr. Singer has addressed that very point in his writings. In his book "Rethinking Life and Death", Dr. Singer notes: "Human babies are not born self-aware or capable of grasping their lives over time. They are not persons. Hence their lives would seem to be no more worthy of protection that the life of a fetus." He's argued in other works that parents of a baby has Down syndrome should be able to kill the child within 28 days after birth "before the ties that have already begun to bind us to our child have become irresistible" and "start from the beginning". In the first edition of "Practical Ethics", he described the mind of a human one-year-old as less than that of many animal species. Given his view, it stands to reason that he probably wouldn't flinch if a parent chose to terminate the life of their 'normal' child in that same time period IF the parent had a reason that seemed 'logical' and fit into Dr. Singer's world view.

[Forever]

The nudity in this campaign is completely unneccesary and irrelevant to the point, which cheapens the ads.
The ABC ad for example could have been done with the girl in a dress, leaving the ABC-animal birth control point intact. And what is with the really old guy being a student? It looks like a prostitute and a john roleplaying.
The vegan ad could show a host of mouthwateringly tasty vegetable dishes. It looks like PETA is using sex as an easy way to get attention without using creativity.

Nudity can have it's place it advertising. For example, when selling underwear, the advertising may want to show the good fit on a model. I understand the use of nudity when it is informative to the customer, but using irrelevant nudity to tittilate the customer into buying your product or idea is a mild form of prostitution.

It teaches little girls that it is okay to use nudity and sexuality to get your point across. A great many people in our society feel the need to be heard, to be listened to and teenagers are especially vulnerable. Next thing you know we have young girls taking of their clothes in the classroom when they have something to say.

[Allison]

Forever, thanks for your comment. I totally agree with you that the nudity in the PETA ads is an easy way to get people's attention without using creativity, but I have to disagree that nudity is appropriate when selling underwear. Underwear has the word "under" in it for a reason! It's not supposed to be seen by random people on the street. There was a time, way back when, that people managed to find good fitting underwear even though there weren't giant billboards of men in boxer-briefs or women in bras on display for the whole world to see. Nudity in the right context is a wonderful thing, but the sad truth is that we've become desensitized to it, and desensitization to nudity can't be very beneficial when it comes to the relationships we have with our most significant others.

[Dog Ramps]

First, there seems to be an excessive amount of dislike for PETA, and perhaps rightly so. PETA has perpetrated the mass slaughter of homeless animals and has also used excessive and often inappropriate tactics against people they feel violate animal ethics...