On PeTA and Friends of Animals, Part Deux

I've been very busy with the early arrival of a new extended family member, Evan Levi (6lb. 3 oz., 19.5" of perfect gorgeousness), so I haven't had much time to participate on my own blog. The hospital has wireless Internet (who knew?), but moderating comments and sparing you the rants of trolls was about all I had time for.

Regarding the discussion about PeTA and Friends of Animals demonstrations in Victoria, I had asked for reactions from people who were there, and thanks to Lee Hall for sending me the link to a reprint of the FoA Facebook page that addressed the demonstration, complete with the thoughts of both observers and participants.

I enjoyed reading your comments for the past 48 hours, and here are some of my thoughts (in order of the comments):

• Dustin: Obviously I wasn't there, but the idea of a counter protest being counter productive isn't one I agree with. I wasn't aware that, as you say, "Any and every time Friends of Animals takes a stand against animal exploiting organizations that declare themselves to be pro-animal we get accused of this." About being ashamed of activists who support PeTA, since I was one of those activists since the 1980s, I can say that until a couple of years ago, I simply wasn't thinking about how much the organization has changed, plus though I disagreed with their sexist campaigns, my thinking at the time was that no organization is perfect, and I was willing to take their choice of campaigns as a flaw I could live with. Of course, once I took more responsibility for my activism and more closely examined where my money was going, I altered my behavior. But I'm the minority, as we know. I'm not sure PeTA members are saying to themselves: PeTA promotes companies that slaughter animals and "turns women into another piece of meat," as you say. I don't think they say: PeTA does that, and that's okay with me. And that's why protests like this by Friends of Animals are crucial. They're the wake-up call that PeTA members need, and they're unambiguous and easily grasped because they're right next to PeTA's message, deconstructing it on the spot.
• Nick: I guess my response to Dustin is my version of your comment.

• Joseph: I too have heard reasoning similar to Nicole Matthews', and of course also the emphasis that they are choosing to exploit themselves (and don't see it as such) because it's for a good cause. It's most disconcerting to hear women promoting the exploitation, objectification and/or commodification of other women.
• Roger: I have seen what you see--that "PeTA IS animal rights in the USA." And I think because of that, I see what Dustin sees, which is that PeTA is laughable, therefore animal rights is laughable. And therein lies the problem.
• Tracy: To me, your reaction demonstrates that the FoA protest accomplished what it set out to (I assume) in that the protest makes it startlingly obvious that PeTA is advertising for KFC. What I don't understand is your preference for PeTA over FoA, as if they're very similar and in the same category. If you're reading, would you help me understand? It seems to me that though PeTA may say that they don't think animals are ours to use, much of what they do isn't aligned with that idea (such as advertising for KFC). The same cannot be said of FoA (unless I'm missing something). So if you don't think animals are ours to use (and I don't know if that's what you think), FoA would seem to be a better fit.
• Nillo: Welcome! And I agree, "PeTA has been destroying the idea of Animal Rights." They have succeeded in turning animal rights into just another version of animal welfare, and most of their members probably haven't even noticed.
• Nathan: I don't disagree, but the thing I'll never forget and never thought I'd read in my lifetime, is that you were up at 2am watching EXTRA.  :-)
• Ardeth: I don't think it's "a bad thing to have animal rights groups publicly at odds" either. (With that said, I don't consider PeTA to be an animal rights group.) If FoA weren't there encouraging people to examine the PeTA message, passersby and PeTA supporters would assume PeTA's way is the way that is most effective and makes the most sense. And I agree with the Holocaust analogy, too.
• Serafina: You say, "PeTA is using the exploitation of woman (turning us into sex objects - and associating us with food to be consumed) to further a corporate agenda not the good of living beings," and I agree!
• Lyda: I like the emphasis on contextualizing what you're doing when you say: "So if you participate in a protest that is degrading to women, what you mean or how you feel about it is only half the equation. You must also think how it makes other women feel. You must also ask if men seeing it feel reinforced in sexist views or behavior because of it."
• Dan: I've already backed off of my use of abolition, but mostly because I don't appear to "qualify" for some reason, and I don't want to give myself a headache.
• bunny: I think that if the protest points out that PeTA is promoting an animal exploiter, and also sending a positive message (Lettuce Respect Women and Animals), it's a great idea. PeTA is an enormous problem because a true animal rights movement can never develop (and there's little hope for abolition) as long as PeTA is the largest "animal rights" group in the world. Taking them to task is necessary.

Thanks, and I welcome further discussion. Have a wonderful day!

Comments

[Dustin Garrett Rhodes, Friends of Animals]

It's been interesting following the conversation in different corners of the internet. I expected more activists to say something to the effect of: "stop wasting your time going after 'animal rights activists'".

Like you, Mary, I do not see PETA as an animal rights organization. Because of that, I see this (counter)demonstration as being useful on many levels: 1. it challenges PETA's assertion that anything they do promotes/discusses/advances animal rights 2. it challenges the insidious ways that not only PETA objectifies and commodifies women (and men, too) by encouraging them to sexualize an issue and titilate an audience in the name of an issue that is worthy of ~meaningful~ dialogue 3. this counter-demo has broadened the conversation about activism and the importance of sending a vegan message. The vegan message is always what PETA seems to be missing. Even when they use the term, the organization appears to be determined to undermine what it really means. And it's not like we get to create our own definition of veganism (like so many in our movement are fond of doing). Donald Watson and the Vegan Society created an intelligent, useful, fully realized framework for us. Now, we simply apply the principles.

Of course there ARE advocates who say this is a "waste of time" and that it's counterproductive--but I don't think so. I think it's fine that KFC now has a lacto-ovo vegetarian option. That's a step, I suppose, but it's far from ideal or even meaningful when it comes to animal exploitation and commodification. What I don't understand is: why would ANY animal advocate PROMOTE a restaurant chain that is responsible for billions of animal deaths on an annual basis? It's one thing to work for options to be placed on the menu and quite another to actively promote the restaurant. I can't even wrap my head around how or why this is a good or useful idea.

[johanna]

I love this:

"So if you participate in a protest that is degrading to women, what you mean or how you feel about it is only half the equation. You must also think how it makes other women feel. You must also ask if men seeing it feel reinforced in sexist views or behavior because of it."

Because I am really tired of women defending PETA against charges of sexism by holding up Ingrid Newkirk's femaleness as a defense, or by saying, "Those women chose to be in that demo/in those cages/etc.!" Just because a woman makes a choice doesn't make it automatically feminist (is Phyllis Schlafly then feminist? :P). And choices are not made in a vacuum.

& congrats on your new family member. :)

[Deb]

I admit I don't really see the point spending much time trying to convert vegans to be a different kind of vegan. I think it is worth it to think about the issue, understand where you stand and how best to make your arguments, etc, but when it comes down to it, what I want to see time being spent on is advocating veganism to people who aren't already vegan.

That being said, I don't think that the FoA counter-protest would end up being counter productive, in the sense that I think the sign was well-chosen to provoke thought without necessarily confusing the average "don't know a damn thing about the issue" people going to KFC. It is a fine line, because the could easily just see it as some kind of joke, the protesters protesting the protesters. anyway, FoA seems to be making it pretty clear that the counter-protest was aimed at vegans or peta supporters. I just feel like it is preaching to the choir to a large extent. IS this the best use of an activists time? Maybe where Dave is, it really is the best use of his time.

(and please no one take any of this as me defending peta's sexism)

In the end, I come back around to feeling essentially as Will Potter expressed in his reaction (greenisthenewred.com). As important as so many people find it to get everything right within the movement (or maintaining that there are more than one movements), considering all the in-fighting it causes, all the time spent re-educating the vegans, is that benefiting anyone?

Maybe it is. I think Will's points are important to consider.

[Niilo John Van Steinburg]

If anyone wants to better understand why the idea of "consenting" to exploitation is a spurious justification, I recommend the book Pornified by Pamela Paul. Actually I recommend it to anyone in our society in general, but it is quite applicable to P-TA's abuse of the human body in its messages.

[Lee Hall]

As reported by THE GUARDIAN on 5 Aug 2008, "20/20" interviewer Martin Bashir blamed a "moment of stupidity" after making a remark about "Asian babes" in a speech. See: http://tinyurl.com/6fzdjj

Notably, the people attending the Asian American Journalists Association's banquet didn't put up with Bashir's sexism.

"Upon reflection, it was a tasteless remark that I now bitterly regret," Bashir has written.

Bashir's apology came as ABC spokesperson Jeffrey Schneider told reporters: "This kind of remark has no place in any setting and Martin knows that and is truly sorry for his serious error in judgment."

As exploiting or making light of sexism has no place in ANY setting, why allow, condone or defend it in a context that's supposed to be about activism for advancing respect, equality, and justice?