I am glad that there are animal rights activists. I believe strongly in protecting animals and trying to live harmonously with them. With PETA in particular, I feel the good they do is far outweighed by the bad. I believe the inconsistencies within their policies demonstrates ignorance, and I believe they perpetuate the objectification of woman.
4.Outdoor Cats: PETA does not believe in letting cats outdoors because of the increased risk of danager. I do agree with keeping pets inside and safe. We’re charged with their protection. They also support letting one’s cat outdoors with supervision. One of the other “uncompromised” stances of PETA, however, is their views on Zoos. PETA believes that “zoos and wildlife parks preclude or severly restrict natural behaviors, such as flying, swimming, running, hunting, climbing, scavenging, foraging, exploring and partner selection”. If this is the case, why are cats encouraged to be kept indoors and only let out under supervision? Cats are wild animals who were domesticated, and yet PETA does not want them to take part in their instintual activities. Yes, there is danger, but that danger is part of being an animal. Humans do offer an added level, but animals are incredibly adaptable. If PETA is going to be the voice of animals, shouldn’t they be consistent in what they’re fighting for?
3. Pit Bull Breeding: PETA’s website does not have a real stance on this. They speak about how the founding member, Ingrid Newkirk, has all these credentials but never do they give support for or against Pit Bulls. There is a generalized statement that all breeders are bad, and how the Pit Bull population by large is mistreated. The wording of this PETA stance implies that PETA supports this ban. I have to question why PETA is not supporting this breed of animal and its right to a happy life. PETA stands for the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. This does not mean “some” animals or “from this approved list”, it means all animals. Yet there is no PETA support behind this misunderstood breed. There is no mention of the positive aspects of a Pit Bull, nor is there any attention brought to the fact that larger breed injuries are more likely to get noticed because the animal is stronger and bigger, not more aggressive, than the smaller breeds. An aggressive chihuahua which bites people (most often referred to as “nip”) isn’t regarded as a threat because this breed is less likely to draw blood or bring serious damage.
2. Euthanasia: PETA believes that euthanasia is “the most compassionate and dignified way for unwanted animals to leave an uncaring world” and that “no-kill shelters do not provide a solution to the problem of animal-companion homelessness”. I understand that the United States is overrun with homeless animals. This fact is heartbreaking and frustrating. However, to believe that killing off “unwanted animals” is an acceptable response to this is unacceptable. I especially don’t understand how a organization which rigidly supports animal rights such as not using them for entertainment, clothing, a food source, etc., could have an “uncompromised” stance that killing animals simply because they’re unwanted is okay.
1. Campaigns: PETA has a history of being sexist, racist, and violent. The PETA YouTube
page shows video ad campaigns and celebrity endorsements. In one video, breed purity for animals was compared to the KKK. In the way of sexism, while PETA has showcased naked men (I can’t find any links, but I’ve heard things), they have a much higher percentage of using naked woman. One live protest has a topless woman caged in the streets, while another ad show a woman’s pussy with “too much” fur and how wrong it is. PETA openly admits they will use any tactic necessary to bring attention to animal rights. They also believe that liberation is directly related to the amount of clothing a woman wears. When questioned about this, their response was:
First, please know that, as an organization staffed largely by feminist women, we would not do something that contributed to the serious problems that women face. We feel that there is nothing shameful or “wrong” about being naked, and we believe that women (and men) should have the choice to use their own bodies to make social statements. This tactic has been used since at least the 11th century, when Lady Godiva rode naked on a horse to protest taxes on the poor. Far from being exploited, our “naked” demonstrators and billboard models choose to participate in our actions because they want to do something to make people stop and pay attention to animal abuse.
Take Traci Bingham, for example, who posed for our “All Animals Have the Same Parts” ad campaign (http://www.GoVeg.com/feat/tracibee/). She is a deeply committed vegetarian who is known to millions for her television work, such as beating out a platoon of men to excel in an endurance test called Boot Camp. She chose to use her body to bring public attention to a serious animal issue. In this case, Ms. Bingham felt offended by the traditional “meat” posters that treat animals as “parts” and she wanted to make the point that neither they nor women should be viewed as parts; we are all precious.
Consider that it is the societies that allow women to wear revealing clothing in which women have the most rights and the most power. Likewise, it is the societies that punish women for wearing revealing clothing in which women have the fewest rights and the least power they are considered chattel who must do as they are told. Should women only be allowed to participate in activism if they promise not to show their bodies or use them to make social statements? If a person chooses to use her physicality and sexuality to convey a message of her choosing, aren’t those who would censor her, even if their motives are well-intended, also somewhat guilty of disrespect and repression?
Although our use of “nudity” is attention-grabbing, we don’t rely on it for the majority of our outreach, nor do we use it gratuitously; it is intended to underscore our message, whether it is “I’d rather go naked than wear fur” to emphasize the health benefits of a vegetarian diet, or to show the vulnerability of animals in laboratories or circuses. We would also like to note that we do not feature only women in our more provocative ads; please see the following examples:
1· http://www.FurIsDead.com/feat-rodman2.asp
2· http://www.PETA.org/feat/jennaethan/
3· http://www.FurIsDead.com/feat-kristoff.asp
As if the ignorance was not clear enough, PETA has now resorted to using women stripping in order to “spread their message”. I support a woman’s right to autonomy. I also support educating women on where their sense of liberation comes from, and why perpetuating the ideal that a woman’s body is the only way to gain power, pride, acceptance, or attention.
