PETA

PETA

January 2001

For further reading:
The Pornography of Meat, by my pal Carol Adams

people for the ethical treatment of animals.

i used to be big into the animal rights world. i still believe in animal rights principles, but lately i’ve broadened out to see how all oppressions are connected, so i believe it’s not truly productive to work on just one issue. you can try forever to get people to stop eating meat (although this mad cow, foot-and-mouth thing just might do the trick! i’m waiting for people to realize that it’s a freaking plague on the level of the stuff they talked about in the bible that came to a people who were horribly off track, and whose priorities were so screwy that they needed to make radical changes. i mean, could the clues be any more clear that these diseases are here to show us that we shouldn’t be eating dead, rotting animals? do you know what hoof-and-mouth disease is? it prevents the animal from gaining weight, so it’s not “financially feasible” to slaughter her. oh, come on, i’m not even talking metaphorically. the animals are getting a disease that’s preventing us from eating them! and still everything i read about it talks about money money money, and not about what any of this really means.).

ok where was i? you can try to get people to stop eating meat by appealing to their health, or the environment or whatever, but unless they understand how meat is connected to everything else and how it can lead to a more positive individual and collective life,

the change will be ephemeral and static at best. some old crusty animal rights activist once told me that it was no use trying to convince anyone to change their lives on ethical grounds, because ethics are so hard to discuss and so sticky. i completely disagree – appealing to ethics is the only way to get someone to change – at least the kind of change i’m looking for. i can spout facts about heart disease for hours, and maybe it will make someone become veg, but i’d much rather convince them that their lives would be cleaner, more thoughtful, more pure and just more rational if they stopped “eating misery,” as alice walker put it. if i can talk to a rational person about what it means to eat animals for 15 minutes i can give them a little nugget of thought to chew around for the rest of their lives. (the problem, of course, is that there is a serious scarcity of rational people – people who are willing to really think about their lives. most people have just given up.)

this kind of consciousness-raising toward veganism is more important than simply spouting off facts about protein or carbon dioxide or water usage because it can lead (more directly, at least) to a consciousness about other things as well. (carol adams talks about a lot of this in her excellent new book, the inner art of vegetarianism).

for example, i believe that meat eating is inextricably bound up with feminism. both eating meat and a society overtly or covertly hostile to women stem from a belief in hierarchies and violence. sexism and meat eating both devalue a whole being – an animal or a woman – and reduce it to parts – a cow becomes a hamburger, a woman becomes an object – a pair of breasts, a hairstyle, something to be won, you know the story. so if we are to really move forward as people and not as the bearers of nice tits (honestly, i never used to think feminism could be reduced so simply, i thought life was more complicated and women had moved forward so much and all that, but when i started working in a new york office building i realized how awful things really are) we need to stop eating meat.

this where peta comes in. peta runs these glossy ads featuring heavily photoshopped naked women who make a living selling an unhealthy and demoralizing and heavily photoshopped body image telling all us mortals that they would “rather go naked than wear fur.”

in short, peta uses the tactics of the mainsteam media to “sell” their animal rights messages. as offensive as the "i'd rather go naked than wear fur" ads are, recently i saw one that was even worse.

it was a picture of a woman, but only from the belly

button down to the top of the crotch. she was sporting an unrealistically thick happy trail and tuft of fur. the tag line said “fur coats: unattractive.” holy hell! was this just a slap in the face to all those unshaven animal rights activists out there or what?

i guess peta is trying to do two things with that ad: in some sick way they are trying to get really image conscious people to not wear fur, and they are telling people that they (the members of peta) are just normal people, because all normal people think body hair is gross, and therefore they are people who deserve to be respected and listened to, not nuts who throw red paint on fur-wearers or anything. the logic is really appalling. it’s like going to KKK members and trying to get them to stop eating meat by telling them that only nigger-lovers eat meat.

the more you look at peta the more you see things like this happening. everything they do manages to use the tools of the vapid masses and makes things worse for people who are trying to discuss progressive issues IN A PROGRESSIVE WAY. the articles in their little magazine are all about 2 paragraphs long, lest they outlive someone’s attention span. the slogans they come up with (not the mention the clip art they use) are insultingly idiotic (fur shame!). at peta.com you can even shop at the peta mall! i could go on forever.

i know, all of this is really petty – how dare i take such cheap shots at people who are honestly trying to do something so in line with what i believe? i think the fact that they do care makes me even more mad at them, honestly. for one thing, they give the a/r movement a bad name. the first thing i tell someone who brings up animal rights is that i do not like what peta does.

also, for me, the means are the ends. for peta everything is about justifying the ends – and if the end they are aiming for is vegetarianism, they have no problem using women in a completely demeaning way to get there. but the problem is that i don’t want to live in a vegetarian society that’s not feminist – because i don’t think such a thing could truly exist. in order to be truly vegetarian we need to go deep inside and free ourselves from violence and hatred. this will not happen with peta’s current tactics.

2001

PETA January 2001 For further reading: The Pornography of Meat, by my pal Carol Adams	people for the ethical treatment of animals. i used to be big into the animal rights world. i still believe in animal rights principles, but lately i’ve broadened out to see how all oppressions are connected, so i believe it’s not truly productive to work on just one issue. you can try forever to get people to stop eating meat (although this mad cow, foot-and-mouth thing just might do the trick! i’m waiting for people to realize that it’s a freaking plague on the level of the stuff they talked about in the bible that came to a people who were horribly off track, and whose priorities were so screwy that they needed to make radical changes. i mean, could the clues be any more clear that these diseases are here to show us that we shouldn’t be eating dead, rotting animals? do you know what hoof-and-mouth disease is? it prevents the animal from gaining weight, so it’s not “financially feasible” to slaughter her. oh, come on, i’m not even talking metaphorically. the animals are getting a disease that’s preventing us from eating them! and still everything i read about it talks about money money money, and not about what any of this really means.). ok where was i? you can try to get people to stop eating meat by appealing to their health, or the environment or whatever, but unless they understand how meat is connected to everything else and how it can lead to a more positive individual and collective life,
the change will be ephemeral and static at best. some old crusty animal rights activist once told me that it was no use trying to convince anyone to change their lives on ethical grounds, because ethics are so hard to discuss and so sticky. i completely disagree – appealing to ethics is the only way to get someone to change – at least the kind of change i’m looking for. i can spout facts about heart disease for hours, and maybe it will make someone become veg, but i’d much rather convince them that their lives would be cleaner, more thoughtful, more pure and just more rational if they stopped “eating misery,” as alice walker put it. if i can talk to a rational person about what it means to eat animals for 15 minutes i can give them a little nugget of thought to chew around for the rest of their lives. (the problem, of course, is that there is a serious scarcity of rational people – people who are willing to really think about their lives. most people have just given up.) this kind of consciousness-raising toward veganism is more important than simply spouting off facts about protein or carbon dioxide or water usage because it can lead (more directly, at least) to a consciousness about other things as well. (carol adams talks about a lot of this in her excellent new book, the inner art of vegetarianism).	for example, i believe that meat eating is inextricably bound up with feminism. both eating meat and a society overtly or covertly hostile to women stem from a belief in hierarchies and violence. sexism and meat eating both devalue a whole being – an animal or a woman – and reduce it to parts – a cow becomes a hamburger, a woman becomes an object – a pair of breasts, a hairstyle, something to be won, you know the story. so if we are to really move forward as people and not as the bearers of nice tits (honestly, i never used to think feminism could be reduced so simply, i thought life was more complicated and women had moved forward so much and all that, but when i started working in a new york office building i realized how awful things really are) we need to stop eating meat. this where peta comes in. peta runs these glossy ads featuring heavily photoshopped naked women who make a living selling an unhealthy and demoralizing and heavily photoshopped body image telling all us mortals that they would “rather go naked than wear fur.” in short, peta uses the tactics of the mainsteam media to “sell” their animal rights messages. as offensive as the "i'd rather go naked than wear fur" ads are, recently i saw one that was even worse. it was a picture of a woman, but only from the belly
button down to the top of the crotch. she was sporting an unrealistically thick happy trail and tuft of fur. the tag line said “fur coats: unattractive.” holy hell! was this just a slap in the face to all those unshaven animal rights activists out there or what? i guess peta is trying to do two things with that ad: in some sick way they are trying to get really image conscious people to not wear fur, and they are telling people that they (the members of peta) are just normal people, because all normal people think body hair is gross, and therefore they are people who deserve to be respected and listened to, not nuts who throw red paint on fur-wearers or anything. the logic is really appalling. it’s like going to KKK members and trying to get them to stop eating meat by telling them that only nigger-lovers eat meat. the more you look at peta the more you see things like this happening. everything they do manages to use the tools of the vapid masses and makes things worse for people who are trying to discuss progressive issues IN A PROGRESSIVE WAY. the articles in their little magazine are all about 2 paragraphs long, lest they outlive someone’s attention span. the slogans they come up with (not the mention the clip art they use) are insultingly idiotic (fur shame!). at peta.com you can even shop at the peta mall! i could go on forever.	i know, all of this is really petty – how dare i take such cheap shots at people who are honestly trying to do something so in line with what i believe? i think the fact that they do care makes me even more mad at them, honestly. for one thing, they give the a/r movement a bad name. the first thing i tell someone who brings up animal rights is that i do not like what peta does. also, for me, the means are the ends. for peta everything is about justifying the ends – and if the end they are aiming for is vegetarianism, they have no problem using women in a completely demeaning way to get there. but the problem is that i don’t want to live in a vegetarian society that’s not feminist – because i don’t think such a thing could truly exist. in order to be truly vegetarian we need to go deep inside and free ourselves from violence and hatred. this will not happen with peta’s current tactics. 2001