i've been a little lazy (actually, just too damn busy) lately, but i have for you a response (with my comments/afterthoughts in red) from PETA regarding the complaint i lodged with them vis à vis their blatant sexism and exploitation of the human body:
Dear étudiante enragée,
Thank you for your letter to PETA. I hope that you’ll allow me to explain the thoughts behind some of our tactics. by all means, i'd love to hear it!
PETA’s purpose is to stop animal suffering, and we use all available opportunities to reach millions of people with powerful messages. so, let me get this straight: animal suffering is wrong, but perpetuation of female disempowerment is acceptable? We have found that people do pay more attention to our more provocative actions, and we consider the public’s attention to be extremely important. does it not matter that people are paying attention for the WRONG REASONS?!?! Sometimes this requires tactics—like naked marches and colorful ad campaigns—that some people find outrageous or even “rude,” but part of our job is to grab people’s attention and even shock them in order to initiate discussion, debate, questioning of the status quo, and, of course, action. maybe i should start going to class naked in order to get my students to pay attention! t & a is much more fascinating to pervs than social issues. come on, PETA! hmm, what kind of discussion and debate does this inspire? action, i can guess, is a bunch of horny men beatin' it thinking about women chopped up like veal. sexy. The current situation is critical for billions of animals, and our goal is to make the public think about the issues. again, animals are MORE important than humans? can we not fight multiple battles at once? it seems a moot point to me to fight for animal rights if we cannot simultaneously struggle for the ethical treatment of half of the world's population as well.
Unfortunately, getting the animal rights message to the public is not always easy and straightforward. right. it's too hard to give people facts about the inhumane conditions of factory farms and disgusting practices of slaughterhouses. i concede, i am unaffected by the "meet your meat" films. hardy har har. i call your b.s. here. Unlike our opposition, which is mostly composed of wealthy industries and corporations, PETA must rely on getting free “advertising” through media coverage. so all of the celebrities who endorse PETA don't contribute any monetary funds to you? alec baldwin? natalie portman? pam anderson and her girls? hmm... We often do outrageous things to get the word out about animal abuse, because sadly, the media usually do not consider the facts alone “interesting” enough to cover. which is why stephen colbert recently invited jonathan safran foer on his show for his new book "eating animals." i realize that these topics have become trendy because of folks like foer, michael pollan, and eric schlosser, but there are many out there who get the message. Colorful and controversial gimmicks, on the other hand, consistently grab headlines, thereby bringing the animal rights message to audiences around the country and, often, the world. "colorful" seems to be a euphemism for "highly sexualized" or perhaps even "misogynistic." take a look at these PETA ads for their "color." i especially like the images of scantily clad women in full makeup looking lustfully into the camera with the words "shackled, beaten, abused" accompanying them. in a day and age where violence against women is commonplace (think it isn't? what about poor chelsea king from california last week?), there is nothing more shameful than pairing sex and violence in a way that turns people on. these ads may shock those who are already informed, but essentially, PETA is preaching to the choir. any hardcore meat eater will look at those photos and see nothing but a homonid that is theirs for the taking. way to persuade and make a point PETA.
Although PETA has been a leader in creating “buzz” to support our cause, we aren’t alone in recognizing its value. According to Brett Gosper, former CEO of Euro RSCG Wnek Gosper, an advertising firm which created a controversial anti-racism campaign, “If your communication is selling a cause, then shock tactics may not just be an option, they may be essential. PETA doesn't use "shock tactics." it uses good old fashioned sex. and while sex may sell, it's selling the wrong message in these ads. Budgets on cause-related work are so low that it is imperative for the media to relay your communication and multiply its visibility. Media won’t do this out of the goodness of their hearts. The more controversial the advertising, the more space it will get.” right. like i said before, i know who PETA's big name endorsers are. i doubt they are lacking funds, especially if we were to compare their budgets to similar causes and more holistic, grassroots organizations.
We wish that that weren’t the case. We would much prefer to do things without the gimmicks—if only it worked. i bet. it's probably pretty nice to get attention from all over due to the sexually appealing women (oh, excuse me, and the OCCASIONAL token men) you feature in your ads. We’d like nothing better than to be able to show the media videos of factory farms, fur farms, and animals in laboratories and have them find it newsworthy enough to cover. But they don’t. what about the AP? NPR? there are worthy news sites out there. if you make an effort, someone will pick up on it and give you the coverage you deserve. i think, however, that you may prefer the mainstream coverage despite the effects of it on the advancement of women. However, when we attach a gimmick, that very same animal abuse ends up in newspapers and on televisions nationwide. Experience has taught us that provocative and controversial campaigns make the difference between keeping important yet depressing subjects invisible and having them widely seen. corny cop out. The alternative is to be ignored in the torrent of tabloid-style stories that dominate the popular press. right again! i forget, PETA has such a wonderfully respectable reputation. any organization that utilizes pam anderson as a key spokesperson should be taken very seriously.
However, PETA does make a point of having something for all tastes, from conservative to radical and from tasteless to refined, and this approach has proved amazingly successful—in the quarter-century since PETA was first founded, it has grown into the largest animal rights group in the world, with more than 2 million members and supporters worldwide. that's cool. where are the tasteful, refined ads again?
PETA has exposed horrific cruelty in animal laboratories, leading to canceled funding, closed facilities, and hundreds of charges filed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture; convinced cosmetics companies to stop cruel product tests on animals; drawn international attention to what happens to animals in the food, fur, and entertainment industries; closed the largest horse-slaughtering operation in North America; convinced designers to stop using fur; cleaned up substandard animal shelters; helped schools find alternatives to dissection; provided information on vegetarianism, companion-animal care, and countless other issues to millions of people; and been responsible for the first successful prosecution of an animal experimenter under anti-cruelty laws. neat. i'm just gonna come out and say it, 'cause it sounds like you're fishing for a compliment here PETA: you guys are amazing-and under appreciated. i think we should forget about other non-profit organizations (like human rights watch) and even ethically based small corporations (equal exchange...) because their tactics are not as "colorful" and daring as yours. oh mighty PETA, show us the error of our ways!
Some of the above feats were accomplished by months of undercover investigation, careful documentation, and a tireless pursuit of justice through the courts and others by colorful stunts and campaigns that drew international media coverage. Please visit http://www.PETA.org/about to learn more about our vital efforts in behalf of animals everywhere. i've been to your damned site. that's what provoked my initial e-mail. thanks for the canned response, it's super heartfelt!
Thank you again for giving us the chance to explain the thoughts behind our tactics. oh yeah, i'm so glad we had this talk. i feel so convinced. We hope that even though we may not always agree on all points, we can still work together on those ones that we do agree on. uh, i don't agree with the KKK on everything (anything for that matter) or the phelps clan either-and i sure as hell don't work with them. so, while i can respect your struggle for the ethical treatment of animals, if you can't also respect the ethical treatment of my fellow humans, i don't think i really wanna be doin' business with ya anyway.
Sincerely,
Laura McCaul (wait a sec?!!? a woman wrote this? sheesh! that's like sarah palin saying she's a feminist. ugh.)
Correspondence Assistant
PETA Foundation
Please donate today i think not. i'll give my money to "endagered species chocolate" or the ASPCA instead. thanks, though!
