Silly PETA Stunts

[Tim Gier]

This seems to me to be a ridiculous and offensive stunt to pull, and one not at all helpful in the cause of animal rights.  What do you think?

JACKSON, Miss. -- Two animal rights activists garnered more attention than expected Wednesday when they were taken away in handcuffs by Jackson police.

 

A vegan bodybuilder and a scantily clad woman snuggled up on a bed in downtown Jackson. The pair are members of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, known as PETA. Their public display at North President and East Capitol streets was intended to promote a vegetarian lifestyle.

http://www.wapt.com/r/26807102/detail.html

[Sheeba Wright]

I hate how some specific people give all of us a bad name. They might mean well, but they definetely don't help the cause.

[Monique]

I don't support PETA's wilder tactics, but I don't criticize them either.  This is how they got be to the big AR organization that everybody knows.  If rational argument worked then there would be plenty of other AR groups in the headlines, but rational argument rarely gets attention or changes hearts and minds.  A stunt like this has nothing to do with animal suffering or animal rights, but it gets the attention of people who otherwise would not think twice about the real issues.

 

And that's where the rest of us come in.  PETA has given me some of my best openings.  

• A stunt like this hits the headlines?  Use the opportunity to write a letter to the editor explaining the real issue. 
• Someone says "I don't approve of animal cruelty, but those PETA guys are wackos."   Agree with them that PETA goes too far, but then gently point out that in fact they are supporting animal cruelty every day. 
• Someone makes a joke about sea kittens?  Laugh with them, but then let them know how fish suffer and that the fishing industry kills millions of "by-catch" animals every year.

These can be priceless opportunities to reach out. 

[Carolyn Bailey]

It may be of interest to read PeTA co-founder, Alex Pacheco's opinion of PeTA, their tacky stunts and the direction they've taken in recent times, from his recent ARZone Guest Chat:

http://animalrightszone.blogspot.com/2011/04/direction-peta-has-tak...

 

His full transcript may also be found here:

http://arzone.ning.com/profiles/blogs/transcript-of-alex-pachecos

 

I found his opinions very interesting, particularly in regards to PeTA and why he left.

 

 

 

[Scott Adam ALF]

Ironically I've got to say its an interesting display between violent and non violent points of view as well the active non violent lay down , and so do the non active violent ones. On some level it brings up some discussion here if there was a call to manifest action and was their actions to manifest it what actually occurred? Good press, bad press. what else do we know about their efforts. Often I wonder if this is like a negative campaign (done legally) going on. Certainly everyone aspires to be the most, but the step to pro-active takes a special breed. As a school mascot I learned this, you do it for a reason. Lets see the police report for a better view Eh. and a follow up to trial maybe an after thought review when released etc.. Its a far cry to sacrifice freedom over a lack of freedom action (within a reason of good faith as an outcome). Local interpretations ironically may give a more accursate portrayal then a syndicated perspective. I know a few Italian carnivores who might disagree with their chosen wording of outreach and they would lose stability on their argument there.

[Adam Little]

Perhaps we need a bit of perspective here? 

 

Suppose Dr. Martin Luther King, instead of soley advocating for nonviolence and equality during the Civil Rights Movement, had decided to create a campaign that had attractive (by traditional beauty standards at least) men and women undressing and dancing in the streets to promote black rights? 

 

Would he have been respected for this endeavor?  Would the Civil Rights Movement have been taken seriously as a pressing social justice issue?  I can say with some confidence that it is extremely unlikely on both accounts.  When has this kind of behavior by a person or group ever enacted serious social change?

 

It is so simple for most people to understand that within a human rights context said campaign would not be useful, so why then should it be anymore acceptable when considering the animal rights movement? 

 

Isn't it about time that we cut out the nonsense?  There is, after all, a lot of work to be done.

[Tim Gier]

Well said Adam.

[Lisa V]

Adam,

 

The civil rights movement wasn't due solely to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. There were all kinds of players and all sorts of social conditions that also helped lead us to a better (but imperfect) level of equality. Some of those involved were more violent than Dr. King. Some were less eloquent, etc. But it seems like we needed all of them working together to effect real change.

 

I think, in the same way, we need all the AR players doing their unique parts for us to make real progress.

 

Maybe you or I would be a bit more "serious" than PeTA, but that doesn't mean PeTA is ineffective ... they're going to appeal to some. The serious folks will appeal to others.

 

In the end, though, PeTA's stunts are used to get publicity, which they do very well. In the case of this stunt, it shows two consenting adults being loving and kind to one another. I won't ever argue with that.

 

 

[Adam Little]

Hi Lisa.  Thank you for your response.

 

Let me be clear from the outset:  I am not questioning whether or not there are a multitude of  individuals with various strategies within any given social movement.  I AM questioning which among these individuals are more or less effective at getting their message across and producing desireable results.

 

It is clear to me that MLK was not the only activist involved in the Civil Rights Movement (CRM).  He was, however, a front runner whose tactics were clearly the most effective within the movement, which was the reason I chose to use him in my analogy in the first place. 

 

Regarding your mention of violent activists within the CRM: This is probably a discussion that should take place somewhere else.  DID violence help forward and improve the CRM?  Does it help the animal rights movment?  I would argue, no.   However, this is not the specific tactic that is under scrutiny here.

 

For now, I'm asking whether or not using sexuality to promote veganism or any other social cause should be beyond criticism.   I do not believe said tactics are helpful.   

 

WHY is relevant even if it is true that vegans are better lovers?  WHY would it of been relevant if supporters of desegregation and equality among humans were better lovers?  How does said implication produce any progress within the respective movements?  The exploited in question are seemingly left out of the picture.

 

There is another issue here as well.  PETA seems to have it in their brain that the sheer nakedness (if you'll forgive the use of the term) of a man or ESPECIALLY a woman is enough to advocate for veganism.   Again, I must question, would this have worked in the CRM?  

 

It is clear that whenever you objectify individuals in such a way you are promoting (perhaps inadvertantly) sexism, and this contradicts the very point of any given progressive social movement: the exploitation of other beings. 

 

Again, when have methods such as these ever  been shown to be responsible for significant social change?  It seems clear to me that said methods, in fact, move us backward from where we want to be.

 

It is interesting that you do not regard PETA's methods and strategies as "serious".  What would that make them then?  Frivolous?  Unimportant?   Scatterbrained?  Are we really comfortable in using these types of adjectives to describe tactics that are meant to combat animal exploitation?  With all respect, isn't it true that animal exploitation is a VERY serious issue and should therefore be treated as one accordingly?

 

A few closing notes:

 

"In the end, though, PeTA's stunts are used to get publicity, which they do very well."

 

This much is clear.  However, what is not clear is whether or not this is the kind of publicity that is beneficial to us as a movement.

 

"In the case of this stunt, it shows two consenting adults being loving and kind to one another. I won't ever argue with that."

 

This may be true as well.  However, it seems that, regrettably, the animals have been left out of the equation.

[Maynard S. Clark]

Of ALL the MANY things I would like to say about vegetarianism (or veganism), 'sexy' is NOT one of them.

 

I've been reared to say nothing if I cannot say anything positive.  In this case, I am unable to give a gracious note to the PETA stunt, so characteristic of its 'public profile' (and highly problematic to more of us than they represent in the pro-animal community).

 

Maynard - [e-mail]
Please connect with me and other ethical vegans on LinkedIn - Mention ARZone when you invite me