On human privilege and the difficulty of being the "voice of the voiceless"

junction-2156349_1280

Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw is one of the first researcher to have coined the term « Intersectionality » to describe how various discriminations are all connected with each other and not separate. Of course, she was mostly using the term to talk about racism and white privilege.

French feminist author Christine Delphy explains that sexism is first and foremost a women’s struggle as racism is first and foremost the affair of « racialized » people. Men who address sexism must first re-examine their male privilege and white people should reexamine their white privilege. In other words, it’s mostly the victims of either who are best able to obviously talk about their experience and fight for their rights.

The problem with non-human animals is that we have taken the stance of being their voice. In all matters of human privilege over non-human animals, it is us, the privileged, who act on their behalf and we have no other choice but doing so. Our actions are, however, done through the filter of our own chatter of human privilege and constructed speciesism. Believing that going Vegan is instantly going to make us antispeciesist is naïve. Veganism is only the beginning of our understanding and duties on behalf of other animals, not an end in itself. The goal is to improve constantly on ourselves and not just content ourselves with not eating them (even if that is huge!).

Each of our actions has to be self-examined at every point at the risk of finding that they are all accomplished within the unvoluntary filter of human privilege. For example, whenever people talk about other animals, their language is (without them realizing) speciesist.  I’ll give you a situation:

You are distributing vegan leaflets on the street to create awareness for the plight of « farmed » animals.

« Hi, would you like to help animals »?

« Oh I don’t know », might respond the person. « I don’t have time to care about animals ».

The term « animals » is misleading. We are all animals. Shouldn’t we say « other animals » to recognize that we shouldn’t be this special species who keeps wanting to distinguish itself of all others on the planet? This is unconscious human privilege. We separate ourselves from other animals. That’s what we’ve been taught.

Someone hearing « Hi, would you like to help other animals? » is more likely to be taken aback by the question and not dismiss the activist. I’ve seen it happen. It is forcing the person to think, not just react because no one ever refers to animals as « other animals » including us in the equation. It also implies that we are not superior to them, since we are animals too, therefore reducing any notion of human privilege.

Second example of our constant bias at work is the fact that we keep using (in the English language that is), the pronoun « it »*, which (being French) I can’t stand. « It » designs things, objects, even babies!

Example of situation:

« This poor pig, it is suffering so much! » yes SHE or HE is. Speciesism equals human privilege. We assign this (pro)noun to a living being who has so far been mostly considered a thing by our culture, conditioning, our human privilege.

Every day, our behavior is conditioned by human privilege and sadly, speciesism is the only discrimination which cannot be fought by the victims themselves. We have no choice than to constantly deconstruct our human privilege in order to give more « voice » to our non-human brothers and sisters. What we eat, like calling vegan meat, « faux meat » or « fake meat », is also speciesist in itself because it tells us that what non vegans eat is the norm when it is the anomaly. I address this a bit longer in a talk I gave in 2014.

The essence of the problem with human supremacy is that we have to destroy it in ourselves because, unlike other supremacies, this one cannot be fought by the victims as discriminated African-Americans or women might. This is the one battle which requires a true questionning of who we are as a species in regards to all others.

The good news is that the more we look at ourselves to destroy our privilege towards other species, the more we can evolve in our (un)conscious discrimination of other humans as well.

This is true intersectionality.

 

* »It » is a pronoun when it is used to design something even a dog as in the article here: « Is the Word “It” a Noun? »

 

Photo: « Junction », courtesy http://www.Pixabay.com free photos

Sources:

  • « L’autre versant du racisme : le privilège blanc » (the other side of racism: white privilege), by Ségolène Roy on the French independant media Médiapart
  • Amazon’s English page for the author Christine Delphy
  • Wikipedia page for the Civil Rights advocate Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw
  • My talk in Los Angeles on Conditioning, History and Science, my YouTube Channel
  • What is racialization, Wikipedia
  • What is intersectionality, Wikipedia

 

© Copyright June 2017 – Vegan Empowerment/Veronique Perrot – All rights reserved. Unauthorized use and/or publication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given with appropriate and specific direction to the original content

Trump, Patriarchy and the Sexual Politics of Meat

donald-trump-1269282_1280

Recently, as I was watching Democracy Now!, I listened to the released tape of Donald Trump making typical sexist remarks about women with Billy Bush (W and Jeb’s cousin) back in 2005. The revealed audio tape goes as this:

UNIDENTIFIED: She’s still very beautiful.

DONALD TRUMP: I moved on her, actually. You know, she was down in Palm Beach. I moved on her. And I failed. I’ll admit it.

UNIDENTIFIED: Whoa!

DONALD TRUMP: I did try and [bleep]. She was married.

UNIDENTIFIED: That’s huge news there!

DONALD TRUMP: No, no, Nancy. No, this was—and I moved on her very heavily. In fact, I took her out furniture shopping. She wanted to get some furniture. I said, « I’ll show you where they have some nice furniture. » I took her out furniture—I moved on her like a bitch, but I couldn’t get there. And she was married. Then all of a sudden I see her; she’s now got the big phony tits and everything. She’s totally changed her look.

BILLY BUSH: Sheesh, you girl’s hot as [bleep]. In the purple.

DONALD TRUMP: Whoa!

BILLY BUSH: Yes!

DONALD TRUMP: Whoa!

BILLY BUSH: Yes! The Donald has scored!

DONALD TRUMP: Whoa!

BILLY BUSH: Whoa, my man! Wait, wait, you’ve got to look at me when you get out and be like—

UNIDENTIFIED: Just remember who set this up. Just remember.

BILLY BUSH: Will you give me the thumbs up?

DONALD TRUMP: That is very funny. Look at you. You are a pussy.

BILLY BUSH: You’ve got to put the thumbs up. You’ve got to give the thumbs up.

UNIDENTIFIED: You can’t be too happy, man.

BILLY BUSH: You’ve got to give the thumbs up.

DONALD TRUMP: All right, you and I will walk in.

BILLY BUSH: Oh, my god!

DONALD TRUMP: Maybe it’s a different one.

BILLY BUSH: It better not be the publicist. No, it’s her. It’s her.

DONALD TRUMP: Yeah, that’s her, with the gold. I’ve got to use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her. You know, I’m automatically attracted to beautiful—I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. I just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.

BILLY BUSH: Whatever you want.

DONALD TRUMP: Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything.

BILLY BUSH: Look at those legs. All I can see is the legs.

DONALD TRUMP: Oh, looks good.

BILLY BUSH: Come on, shorty.

DONALD TRUMP: Ooh, nice legs, huh?

BILLY BUSH: Oof, get out of the way, honey. Oh, that’s good legs. Go ahead.

DONALD TRUMP: It’s always good if you don’t fall out of the bus. Like Ford, Gerald Ford. Remember?

BILLY BUSH: Down below. Pull the handle.

DONALD TRUMP: Hello. How are you? Hi.

ARIANNE ZUCKER: Hi, Mr. Trump. How are you? Pleasure to meet you.

DONALD TRUMP: Nice seeing you.

ARIANNE ZUCKER: Pleasure to meet you.

DONALD TRUMP: Terrific. Terrific. You know Billy Bush?

ARIANNE ZUCKER: How are you?

BILLY BUSH: Hello. Nice to see you. How are you doing, Arianne?

ARIANNE ZUCKER: I’m doing very well. Thank you. Are you ready to be a soap star?

DONALD TRUMP: We’re ready. Let’s go. Make me a soap star.

BILLY BUSH: How about a little hug for the Donald? He just got off the bus.

ARIANNE ZUCKER: Would you like a little hug, darling?

DONALD TRUMP: OK, absolutely. Melania said this was OK.

BILLY BUSH: How about a little hug for the Bushy? I just got off the bus.

ARIANNE ZUCKER: Oh, Bushy, Bushy.

BILLY BUSH: There we go. Excellent. Well, you’ve got a nice co-star here.

ARIANNE ZUCKER: Yes, absolutely.

DONALD TRUMP: Good. After you. Come on, Billy. Don’t be shy.

BILLY BUSH: As soon as a beautiful woman shows up, he just—he takes off on me. This always happens.

DONALD TRUMP: Get over here, Billy.

ARIANNE ZUCKER: I’m sorry. Come here.

BILLY BUSH: Let the little guy in here. Come on.

ARIANNE ZUCKER: Yeah, let the little guy in. How you feel now? Better?

BILLY BUSH: It’s hard to walk next to a guy like this.

ARIANNE ZUCKER: I should actually be in the middle. Here, wait. Hold on.

BILLY BUSH: Yeah, you get in the middle. There we go.

DONALD TRUMP: Good. That’s better.

ARIANNE ZUCKER: This is much better. This is—

DONALD TRUMP: That’s better.

BILLY BUSH: Now, if you had to choose, honestly, between one of us—me or the Donald—who would it be?

DONALD TRUMP: I don’t know. That’s tough competition.

ARIANNE ZUCKER: That’s some pressure right there.

BILLY BUSH: Seriously, you had to take one of us as a date.

ARIANNE ZUCKER: I have to take the Fifth on that one.

BILLY BUSH: Really?

ARIANNE ZUCKER: Yup. I’ll take both.

DONALD TRUMP: Which way?

ARIANNE ZUCKER: Make a right. Here we go. Right on The Days.

BILLY BUSH: Here he goes. I’m going to leave you here.

DONALD TRUMP: OK.

BILLY BUSH: Give me my microphone.

DONALD TRUMP: OK. You’re going to—oh, you’re finished?

 

Donald Trump, being his usual « open self », actually did a favor to women everywhere by revealing what a lot of men say behind closed doors, behind their wife’s or girlfriend’s backs, and by showing how patriarchy is still very much embedded in our culture. It is not surprising really, as Carol Adams pointed out in her preface to the Twentieth Anniversary of The Sexual Politics of Meat, mentioning Susan Faludi’s The Terror Dream about Rudy Giuliani (who strongly supports Trump):

« As Susan Faludi shows in The Terror Dream, after 9/11 the media hyped John Wayne-like masculinity, Superman-like male powers, and the hypervirility of rescuers and politicians. Thus we learned that, after the World Trade Centers fell, the first meal Mayor Giuliani wolfed down was a sandwich made of « meats that sweat ». Where there is (anxious) virility, one will find meat eating. »

But Trump is not alone of course. A few months ago when actress and activist Pamela Anderson showed up with Captain Paul Watson in the French senate to oppose Foie-Gras and the destruction of the ocean, all the sexist politicians rose up to the occasion, first to get their pictures with her and then to make the most sexist and speciesist comments. Because the two don’t function without each other, I noted two of them in particular which I translate here:

  • « No silicon in my foie-gras »
  • « This is the Assembly, we’re not here for clowns and chicks. »

These guys, whatever their country of origin have all the same thing in common. It doesn’t matter where they’re from, they are male (usually white) and they flank their patriarchal entitlement which oppresses women and non-human animals.

Trump speaking of « pussy »and « legs » is similar to those calling a cow’s or a hen’s body parts « breasts », « legs », it’s about reducing women or non human animals (mostly female animals since the animal industry wouldn’t exist without their reproductive abilities) as consumable. As Carol Adams says it very well in her preface:

« The process of viewing another as consumable, as something, is usually invisible to us. Its invisibility occurs because it corresponds to the view of the dominant culture. The process is also invisible to us because the end product of the process – the object of consumption – is available everywhere. »

What Trump and the French politicians did was shine a light (not willingly obviously) on the rampant unspoken subjects of our cultures, the patriarchal entitlement over women and animals. Animal agriculture, as Will Tuttle perfectly demonstrated in The World Peace Diet, was started by men about 10,000 years ago and the oppression of women with it.

Trump did us a favor by (unwillingly) exposing also the hypocrisy of others. Let’s not forget that he says openly with his sexism what most Republicans (and a lot of Democrats) say behind closed doors and wouldn’t admit publicly. When vice-presidential nominees Tim Kaine and Mike Pence squared off in their only debates and were asked about their religions, abortion and women’s reproductive rights in general was put to the forefront of the discussion (again by two white males who think they know better than women). Green Party’s vice-presidential nominee, Ajamu Baraka, called them « sexists ». No wonder, both Republican and Democratic parties exclude third party candidates, they might say a few truths.

The oppression of  women is more subtle than Trump’s overt sexist speeches, politicians use laws to restrict women’s control over their bodies. For instance, after Texas voted very restrictive abortion laws, over half of the clinics closed down. And for those who think that would support the anti-abortion side, according to the The Atlantic, « Between 100,000 and 240,000 Texas women between the ages of 18 and 49 have tried to end a pregnancy by themselves, according to a pair of surveys released Tuesday by the Texas Policy Evaluation Project, a University of Texas-based effort aimed at determining the impact of the state’s reproductive policies. »

Patriarchy treats women as children incapable of making their own decisions about THEIR bodies. These laws, whether you agree with them or not, are made by mostly white older males who think they know better than women what women should do about their reproductive lives. What we do to non-human females is the same: we control their bodies for reproduction in order to perpetuate the same old system of slavery.

And some women are complicit within the patriarchal system. Hillary Clinton is very much pro-war, another male invented concept which has always been about obtaining resources (including women, land and animals).  As part of the Clinton Foundation, Hillary didn’t denounce the fact that women within it are paid less than men. And of course, when women consume the bodies, milks and eggs of female animals, they are also participating in the sexual politics of meat.

Everything is connected and Trump’s disgusting behavior had the merit to open some discussion around at least sexism.

 

Sources:

  • In Shocking Tape Trump Boasts of Sexually Assaulting Women: « When You’re a Star…You Can Do Anything » – Democracy Now!
  • The Sexual Politics of Meat by Carol J. Adam on her website
  • The World Peace Diet by Dr. Will Tuttle at WorldPeaceDiet.com
  • Exclusive Pay Gap Alert: Clinton Foundation Male Execs Earn 38% More Than Women – The Daily Caller
  • Texas Women Are Inducing Their Own Abortions – The Atlantic

  • Expanding the Debate: Green Ajamu Baraka « Debates » Pence & Kaine in Democracy Now! Special – Part 1 and Part 2
  • Pamela Anderson & Paul Watson – On n’est pas couché 23 janvier 2016 #ONPC

Donald Trump picture, courtesy Pixabay.com, free photos stocks

 

© Copyright October 2016 – Vegan Empowerment/Veronique Perrot – All rights reserved. Unauthorized use and/or publication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given with appropriate and specific direction to the original content

Deconstructing PETA's Thinking

Earlier today I received a letter from PETA which I didn’t expect. I had previously responded to their letter requesting me to renew my membership, which I have not done in years, with the simple message on the slip « I will support PETA again when you guys stop the sexist campaigns ». I didn’t write them a long letter and therefore expected that this would be ignored among their thousands of letters.

Therefore, my comment must have touched a chord if it deserved such a long letter, which I reproduce here and will comment on:

« Thank you for your letter expressing concern about the women who participate in our ads and campaigns. We appreciate the time you took to share your thoughts with us. »

What is interesting is that they took what I said seriously even though it was just a small message on their payment slip which I just sent back in a stamped envelope. They are obviously concerned about activists’ opinions and they know they are getting a lot of backlash.

peta-went-on-a-global-campaign-against-kfc-and-used-dead-bikini-clad-women« As an organization staffed largely by feminist women, we would not do something that we felt contributed to the very serious problems that women face. Our demonstrations and models choose to participate in our actions because they want to do something to make people stop and pay attention. We believe that people should have the choice to use their own bodies to make social statements, and that there is nothing shameful or « wrong » about doing so. This tactic has been used since Lady Godiva rode naked on a horse to protest taxes on the poor in the 11th century. Please know that we also feature men in our ads and demonstrations. »

We need to look at the definition of feminism according to PETA. Is being a feminist reinforcing the idea of women as pieces of meat and body parts or is it about empowering women and elevate their status in a patriarchal society and therefore challenging said patriarchy? Calling a woman a « chick » is in itself sexist same as calling a woman a « bitch ». These terms, which apply to female animals are been degraded to represent a sexist mindset. PETA believes that it is all right to objectify women. According to a recent article from Scientific American, we live in a world in which three in ten women are either physically abused and/or raped by men. And what does PETA do? they promote violence against women and objectify them. 

article-2101762-11C19409000005DC-998_468x286

PETA has never showed women for who they really are: intelligent, educated, capable of contributing to society in a way men never imagined. Women can in fact change the face of society and elevate us above wars, greed, poverty, if they put their minds to it. Because women have, in fact, a lot of inner power and maturity, the patriarchal infantile powers will do everything they can to repress them. PETA, on the other hand, shows women as chauvinist men want them to be: sexual objects, deconstructed objects of desires, nothing else. They continually reinforce the dominant patriarchal paradigm of exploitation and might makes right. It is obvious that the world is not only treating animals like things but women too.

Using the example of Lady Godiva, an 11th century woman who had no other way of making a statement because in her time women just had to shut up and stay home is frankly disingenuous and misguided. It is the same as saying that people should eat other animals because the Eskimos do. It doesn’t represent the activism done by women as a whole at all.

We are not in the 11th century where women have zero rights and we are not in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan where a woman can be stoned to death for carrying a cell phone (as a news story indicated recently). This is the western world where women work even harder than men just to be equal, where women still mostly carry the burden of children and work and don’t even get equal pay for equal work, where women get raped every second of the day while a lot of men get a kick at watching sick pornography which promotes exactly the same thing as PETA: women as sexual objects.

When PETA says they use also men, it is true. However, only 5% of all the sexual objectification done in the media includes men. Women, on the other hand are objectified not only in men’s magazines but also women’s magazines, giving them the impression that a woman is only as good as her lipstick or the size of her breasts.

« These activist are dedicated to helping foxes who are electrocuted and skinned by the millions for the fur industry, calves who are torn from their distraught mothers and slaughtered for the meat industry, elephants who are beaten bloody and forced to live in chains year after year in circuses, and the billions of animals who suffer from torture, maddening isolation, starvation, terror, and violent death at the hands of uncaring industries. »

I don’t doubt one minute the sincerity of activists in any of their actions. What I don’t agree with is their tactics. How does it serve animals to have naked women on the street? What message does it send? How many men do you know stop by and look at women with lettuce leafs and think « geez I should really write a check to stop the fur industry » or « damn, I should really go Vegan? » I think it is, like a friend of mine pointed out, also insulting to men as it puts them all in the same category which says that men are only interested in sex. That is insulting to both genders and it is all the more insulting to animals.

We would NEVER apply these tactics to defend human rights. In fact, no one in the Suffragette movement has removed clothes to promote the rights of women to vote. Nor can I imagine Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. would have been ok with this kind of tactics to promote the cause of African Americans. Can you imagine him saying « I’d rather go naked than… »? We would consider this absurd in the human rights movement or the peace movement but we find this perfectly normal in the animal rights movement.

This is a form of Speciesism.

a-scantily-clad-pamela-anderson-starred-in-this-ad-which-was-banned-in-montreal-because-it-was-sexist« Take Traci Bingham and Pamela Anderson, for example, who posed for our ‘All Animals Have the Same Parts’ ad campaign. Both are deeply committed vegetarians known to millions for their television work, and chose to use their bodies as a political tool to grab public attention for serious animal issues. In this case, Ms. Bingham and Ms. Anderson were offended by the traditional ‘meat’ posters that treat animals as ‘parts’, and they wanted to make the point that neither farmed animals nor women should be viewed as parts – we are all precious. »

This campaign is just totally stupid and actually defeats the purpose. Women are already mostly regarded in society as ‘parts’. Just look at commercials and the media and pornography, etc. If this was not the case, we wouldn’t have this shocking three in ten statistic! So to make this « point » is just reinforcing what already exists. It doesn’t change the prevalent paradigm.

If Ms. Bingham and Ms. Anderson are so committed to animal rights, why are they described as « vegetarian »? Are they not full fledged Vegans yet? This stems of hypocrisy to me. But then again, PETA, like other welfarist organizations, shies away from the word « Vegan » whereas it is not afraid of the word sexism. I call this a double standard.

PETA PREGZ

If we really want to change society’s thinking about other animals and women, reinforcing the mainstream thinking on both issues is what keeps it going, not the opposite. To solve a problem, we have to stop feeding it. The crass campaigns are just PETA’s excuse to get more money to continue to exist because they know there are a lot of men out there who love to look at naked women… and nothing else. But these are exactly the wrong people to target for any kind of campaigns because they are the least susceptible to change themselves or really care. From a psychological point of view, you can’t easily change anyone whose thinking is the basest.

Once again, it does insult men who actually think of women as intelligent partners in the web of life and not just sex objects as well as other animals. It would be like starting an anti-rape campaign and targeting rapists as potential people to make changes. That is crazy.

« We feel that all people should be free to use their minds and bodies (italic in the letter) as political instruments to bring attention to animal suffering like this, and we appreciate any effort to help those who have no voice. We use all available opportunities to reach millions of people with powerful messages. We have found that people do pay more attention to our racier actions, and we consider the public’s attention to be extremely important. Sometimes this requires tactics – like naked marches and colorful ad campaigns – that some people find rude or outrageous, but part of our job is to shake people up and even shock them in order to initiate discussion, debate, questioning of the status quo, and of course, action. After PETA publicized our « State of the Union Undress », for example, we were rated the number one « mover » on Yahoo’s search engine, meaning that PETA received the greatest percentage increase of terms searched that day. The situation is critical for billions of animals, and our goal is to make the public think about the issues. Although some consider our projects that include nudity to be controversial, many women express support for these tactics. »

PETA clearly shows its colors in this text. They are for cheapening women and it is disguised as empowering them. That has nothing to do with being a feminist but everything to do with wanting to please the patriarchal and sexist dominant thinking. Women who « approve » of this do so within the context of a patriarchal thinking and they are as brainwashed as their male counterparts.

There is no challenge once again of the dominant thinking and it looks like PETA is desperate to grab any attention even if it makes Vegans/animal rights activist look like crazies and extreme lunatics (which they do). It makes the cause of protecting and saving animals look like prostitution. This is morally wrong.

Animal rights should be elevated to the same level as human rights, women’s rights, gay rights, etc… Everything is connected and interconnected. How we use a ‘ism’ affect all other ‘isms’. Ignoring this fact will get PETA more and more enemies in the long term and will NEVER really help animals being seen as more than just pet or food with just a very minimum level of rights. I find their « State of the Union Undress » distasteful. It does in fact sounds like a title for a pornographic movie. If that is the image of women they want to give, they are harming us and the animals every day. Case in point is that, very often, if I mention I am Vegan, a non-Vegan will often tell me: « oh, you must be one of these crazy PETA people. » And it’s not said in a nice way but with a mocking tone. Thanks!

I don’t really care if they were number one on Yahoo. What they fail to mention in this letter are the comments from people who read about them. They fail to realize that non-Vegans react to the first image of Vegans/Animal rights activists they get. If that image is an image of intelligent discourse, it is one thing. But if that image is naked women with lettuce leaves, a non-Vegan will never look at other Vegans after that with respect. The first impression either wins them over or not. PETA is only successful when they inform people (in a non sexist way) about Veganism. That is how I got to Veganism myself. If I had stumbled unto PETA’s sexist campaigns as a non-Vegan, I would have ran the other way saying that these people are crazies.

« You might find it interesting to consider that 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 clothing in which women have the fewest rights and the least power. Should women only be allowed to participate in activism if they promise not to show their bodies or use their bodies as a political statements? If a person chooses to use his or her physicality and sexuality to convey a message of his or her choosing, aren’t those who would censor him or her, even if their motives are good, also somewhat guilty of disrespect and repression? »

This argument had me flip. It conveys the message that women are only as free as the amount of clothing that they wear. This is total nonsense and ignores the reality of patriarchal thinking. The fact that women are more free in some countries has nothing to do with the amount of clothing they wear but with the fight their mothers and grand-mothers put up to gain them equal rights to men.

PETA’s statement is in fact insulting the women who pioneered gender equality. Should are mothers and grand-mothers have gone naked to promote voting rights and abortion rights, etc. ? That argument is so twisted that once again it shows the high degree of perversity to which PETA has lowered itself in the last 20 years or so.

That women choose to go naked for PETA’s campaign is of course their decision. But these decisions are, once again, made in the context of a highly patriarchal world. They could say the same about prostitutes and porn ‘actresses’. But what they don’t know is the high degree of suffering in each of these industries in which these women are physically and psychologically damaged (but that could make an entire separate blog). All PETA does, I repeat it once more, is degrading one cause to promote another cause. You can’t change people’s thinking by keeping them in the same mind-frame. PETA treats women AND men as idiots and not as intelligent adults who can understand the rational message of Veganism. They resort to cheap tricks because they are incapable of giving an intelligent message. That is a high poverty of ambition.

« PETA does make a point of having something for all tastes, from the most conservative to the most radical and from the most tasteless to the most refined, and this approach has proved amazingly successful – in the three decades since PETA was founded, it has grown into the largest animal rights group in the world, with more than 3 million members and supporters worldwide. For more information about PETA’s vital work for animals, please visit our website.

We respect your right to disagree with our tactics but hope that you will continue to support projects that you agree with, such as our free vegetarian/vegan starter kit giveaways or our low-cost spay/neuter clinics. »

PETA calls itself an animal rights organization which I find highly ironic since they are in fact a welfarist organization just like other major animal groups out there. A real animal « rights » organization would clearly see the connections between the rights of animals and the rights of women, blacks, gays, etc… but it doesn’t. They act in fact like a prostitute who shakes her legs to get money from men. PETA does the same with its members. They serve the dominant exploitative patriarchal mindset by prostituting themselves to it.

PETA clearly confesses that they are not afraid of trash and they proved it over and over again. One big example is their ads showing battered women which sends a disturbing message that harming women is ok. Domestic violence portrayed in commercials, whether done tongue in cheek as PETA says or not, is disgusting and shows that PETA is NOT feminist.

How can I support any good work they do (like promoting Veganism which is in itself extremely limited) when everything else they do just cheapens the cause of animal rights and Veganism and reduces it to just silly antics by objectifying women. And I won’t even comment on their killing of perfectly adoptable companion animals, which would deviate from the issue. Whatever credibility PETA still had for me just ended with this letter.

The best service PETA can do for women and other animals is to disappear. Let the real activists send the right message. Just like HSUS sells out to pig producers, PETA sells out to patriarchy.

© Copyright 2013 – All Rights Reserved – No printing authorized without prior consent.