I know I shouldn't be surprised by PETA's latest billboard campaign in Florida - after all, their brand of activism has proven to be sexist and racist time and time again - why not fat-shaming to boot? (Part of me hates posting this at all because it does just give PETA the attention that they want. But I just had to.)
From PETA's press release on the billboard:
A new PETA billboard campaign that was just launched in Jacksonville reminds people who are struggling to lose weight -- and who want to have enough energy to chase a beach ball -- that going vegetarian can be an effective way to shed those extra pounds that keep them from looking good in a bikini. The ad shows a woman whose "blubber" is spilling over the sides of her swimsuit bottom...Anyone wishing to achieve a hot "beach bod" is reminded that studies show that vegetarians are, on average, about 10 to 20 pounds lighter than meat-eaters...
"Trying to hide your thunder thighs and balloon belly is no day at the beach," says PETA Executive Vice President Tracy Reiman. (Emphasis mine)
Seriously? This shit is just shameful. Consider this woman's reaction after seeing the billboard:
I was planning on taking [my family] to the beach to enjoy the beautiful day when I saw a billboard that made me want to cry....We all sat there and stared at it for a minute and everyone in the car was silent. No one wanted to mention my weight. I laughed it off as usual, but it really had made me so embarrassed, so self conscious and so ashamed about my weight that I dropped off my family at the oceanfront and left to go home, making the excuse that I wasn't feeling well.
I'm with Holly at Deceiver: PETA owes the residents of Jacksonville a serious apology.
Related posts: Sometimes there are no words
Quick Hit: PETA's Ad Banned from the Super Bowl
PETA: Cause objectifying women never gets old
When you thought PETA couldn't get worse.
PETA does it again
Same old shit from PETA
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: PETA fat-shames in "Save the Whales" campaign.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/15541
Can I just say that... um... PeTA offering an apology... um, yeah, real likely.
Also, how fucking dense is PeTA? I mean, the 10-20 lb correlation is not necessarily anything more than a correlation. I mean, dang, I know nuff folks who've put on weight after going vegetarian and/or vegan, not that it's even important... especially given that PeTA is, ostensibly, an animal rights group. Getting people to stop eating meat because of destructive self-image bullshit has absolutely nothing to do with animal liberation and everything to do with traumatizing people.
I mean, do they even realize that they make it harder for right-minded people to struggle with and for other animals in good conscience? That their actions and media dominance poison the entire struggle? Are they really a front group for the American Meat Institute or some shit? Because they're doing a great job of shifting the focus from any ethical argument against industrial meat production and toward a morally-bankrupt and offensive argument founded on paper-thin data.
Ugh.
No kidding. As it continues to make violent, hurtful, sexist and racist choices in its advertising, Peta DOES start to seem more and more like a front group... The conspiracy theorist in me wonders if they aren't really pulling a PR campaign for the slaughterhouses and factory farms...
I don't eat animal products AND I don't identify with Peta. I am so dismayed that some people associate all vegetarians and vegans with Peta... I'm sure I'm not the only veg who is disgusted by veg evangelism in all its forms...
My motto tends to be along the lines of "don't tell me what to eat and I won't tell you what to eat either."
Thanks for this-you articulate my feelings well. I've been a vegetarian for years because of the bad and dirty meat production in this country-not cause PETA got to me-and I hate, hate HATE being identified with PETA. It might be that I hate idealogues of every stripe, because extremism gets so tired so quickly, but PETA makes me especially mad.
I truly think that the higher ups of PETA care nothing about the supposedly compassionate and ecological mission. They focus on publicity as a means to make money, to keep the donations rolling in, and they keep shitstorms going and star stupid debates to keep PETA in the public eye and to keep memberships high. The foot soldiers might be true belivers, but I think Ingrid Newkirk is one sly asshole, and she knows exactly what she's doing.
I f-ing hate PETA. As a feminist. As a human. I was a vegetarian for a total of 7 years (if you count the 2 that I occasionally ate fish...I don't, others do) and even then, I wouldn't EVER think of joining this joke of an organization. PETA gets nothing done. After the Ben & Jerry's/breastmilk campaign, I was SO over them. That was the last straw, I think.
Mind you, I weighed more as a vegetarian than I do as a meat-eater: it is what my body needs. And then, I DID eat properly as a veg. Not a bunch of pasta or anything. Complete proteins.
Not like it should matter! PETA is only interested in the human body if it is fit for objectification.
Thanks for posting this. I've been meaning to blog about PETA, and now I have an angry reason to do so!
PETA is only interested in the human body if it is fit for objectification.
Too many feminists are only interested in the animal body if it is fit for experimentation and slaughter. That, for me, is the main problem in most of these discussions.
One has nothing to do with the other. There is no excuse for PETA's actions. But feminists don't believe in animal rights is not a valid argument for this billboard. PETA could make a organizational decision to stop objectifying women to shock people into thinking about animal rights. They instead run campaign after campaign of this trash. Who is going to go veg*n because of that billboard? The only message that board carries is you are a fat ass woman. Notice the board is target toward women. Men have the highest prevalence of obesity in the country. Why make the board lash out at women?
Haha I'm a vegetarian (not because of PeTA- and I do NOT agree with their advertising or a lot of stuff they do).
They're a minority group and sadly took the wrong turn in trying to gain attention. I understand what its like to be a minority. I identify as not only a vegetarian but a lesbian and (like the rest of us here ) a feminist. Like the rest of us, I see the struggle my causes endure much too often. I understand their desperateness but this is not the way to go. Unfortunately PeTA took on the wrong attitude. They get "attacked" so often that the only way they feel like they can be noticed is if they "attack" back. It's a culture war they've created and it can only get worse if they keep up these tactics. They're fighting double standards with double standards and stereotypes with stereotypes. Hasn't worked in the past, won't work now. Not in this case.
ugh...as a vegetarian and feminist, this bothers me. Please know that many animal rights and welfare activists despise PETA.
And besides, this just isn't true. I'm not "thin" like their lettuce ladies. Even a healthy vegetarian diet doesn't guarantee that you are going to be very thin.
The writer of Veganomicon discusses that in her book. She talks about how vegetarians and vegans don't have an automatic pass when it comes to weight issues. I appreciate honesty, not this kind of woman-hating, fat-hating bullshit.
Thanks for bringing up the Veganomicon... because it gives me the opportunity to mention the Post Punk Kitchen's Vegan Cupcakes Take Over the World, in which I discovered a game-changing red velvet cupcake recipe (not to mention their "buttercream" - so simple, so good)...
Also, I have to brag... I just friended Isa Moscowitz on facebook... super-star-struck.
I am so so so angry about this one in particular. I am a fat woman and I am still amazed at how ok it is in our culture to spew such hatred toward fat people. It's doubly frustrating because if there is any backlash, people will just make fun of the protestors even more than the billboard itself. I want to say something to PETA but like you mentioned in your post, this will just give them the attention they are looking for. I wish there was a way to really show them how destructive and hurtful these campaigns are without just adding fuel to the fire they are trying to start with this. I would be absolutely mortified if I were walking around Jacksonville and came across this sign.
Ugh. Just when I think PETA can stoop no lower, they come out with an add campaign like this.
Seriously, is PETA deliberately trying to alienate people? It sure seems like it!
PETA is just so offensive. I really don't have anything else to say. You've pretty much nailed it down, Jessica.
I'm not a vegetarian, but I do believe in animal rights and PETA only makes people WANT to get away from animal rights.
fuck PETA.
I'd like to know how you can "believe" in animal rights and still consume their flesh. Yet, "belief" in animal rights kind of puts it in the same category as Santa Claus, something like that. I think you have to actually practice it, not believe it, per se.
Belief in animal rights and eating meat aren't mutually exclusive. I believe that carnivorous behavior is natural (as in, seen among other species in the wild all the time) and therefore not always inappropriate for humans to partake in. At the same time, I can believe that humans be engaged in protecting the lives and habitats of exotic animals, that humans can be involved in development, funding, and maintenance of domestic no-kill animal shelters, that we can advocate spaying and neutering, and that we can push for "ethical treatment" (to use PETA's jargon) of farm animals that may eventually be consumed... among many, many other animal-related issues.
Now, my purpose in saying this is not to try to change your particular opinion about eating meat. Rather, I'd just like to point out that your comment for me does come down to a difference in point of view - namely, whether or not it is natural and/or appropriate for humans to ever consume meat. Regardless of what position you take, I'd like to submit that consuming meat does not eliminate the possibility of one being an animal rights proponent in other areas.
That is not animal rights, if it was a right animals would have the right not to be murdered and exploited. What you want to do is give welfare to animals we deem exotic or companion animals.
That stand quickly runs away into the realms of absurdity. Humans are animals too. The cow can get eaten by humans or wolves. Humans might (and, yes, should) kill it more humanely at least.
I probably need to expand on the above few statements, and I want to touch on some other comments in the thread as well.
Everything that exists is, by definition, natural. Not "natural." That being said, natural shouldn't, necessarily, by considered synomynous with "better."
Consider flower pollination by insects, or ants farming aphids. It is reasonable to view human/livestock relationships similarly. Humans benefit from eating cows, but the cows get protected from other predators, and parasites and are kept fed and watered, and healthy. They are also bred, and bred and bred.
Evolutionarily speaking, the various plants and animals that have been domesticated are among the most successful species of their types (as measured in population, of course).
Because something is "natural" doesn't make it ethical. And no, the domesticated animals aren't the most successful on the planet by virtue of population. We've bred and inbred so much that they have a plethora of health problems, the white breast turkey, the most common turkey raised for meat, cannot breed on its own. They get too fat to mate, they always have to be masturbated and artificially inseminated. Steers too have far less health problems than bulls, pigs in their old age can be upwards of a thousand pounds and struggle to carry their weight, and chickens fall over because their large breasts make it hard for them to keep balance. They are bred bred bred until they can't breed anymore on their own and we have to do it for them. I'm sure a lot of them would rather be granted freedom then bred and bred and bred until they can't breed anymore, until their bodies fail them and then they have their throats slit, all for human pleasure.
So successful means what exactly? They're happiest? That can't even be applied to most organisms.
Evolutionarily speaking success is successful breeding, and a greater population. More specifically successful genes have more copies. And the successful ones are the various growth genes. I'd recommend The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins for more on this idea.
As for now requiring being bred by humans, numerous flowering plants require very specific pollinators in order to reproduce.
There's little humans do that's original.
Sure but do bees use selective breeding? I mean - there is a HUGE difference between what bees do and what humans do to other animals. For example - we pick the most docile and the least likely to survive in the wild of animals to breed. Meaning - the cows that actually try to fight out of their position are quickly shot and killed, whereas the cows that are more willing to accept their fate are bred (it isn't EXACTLY this way but it's just one example of selective breeding). Another thing humans do (Hubbard Farms does this) - they try to selectively breed species of chickens that will lay more eggs, more frequently for human consumption.
Where do you see other animals in nature f'ing around with genes like this?
With a quick search, (a single google, without access to things like PubMed etc) I found a citation for Baker and Hurd (1968) that suggests insects exerting selective pressure on plants, and not just the other way around. Pollinators generally would probably gravitate to the best food source, thus selecting for plants that produce the most of whatever they're feeding on.
I can't believe you're comparing the selective breeding of domestic animals by humans to the kinds of selectivity that occur in nature. Spend five minutes listening to a pug snort and you'll hear the sounds of humano-centric breeding gone positively haywire.
I don't want to get too far into it today, but the assumption that the consumption of animal flesh as "natural" is problematic. Anything that can be construed as "natural" should be viewed skeptically.
I agree with all of the other aspects of animal rights that you identify, but for me, reading and actually caring about animals inevitably leads to not eating them. That is the final stop. Actually, it is a lot easier to refuse eating meat as an animal rights issue than it is to go out and campaign for environmental issues, such as preservation of habitats, for example. You eat three times a day, sometimes more. Real impact starts on your plate and it is the easiest, perhaps most ethical way, to make a difference.
I'm a vegetarian and I completely understand and agree with your overall point mandoir.
I am soooo sick of vegetarians and vegans trying to shove their beliefs down other people's throats and shame them for eating meat. At the same time, I'm soooo sick of meat eaters trying to make fun of me for being a vegetarian or rubbing the fact that they love to eat meat in my face. Why can't we educate each other (like I think you've nicely done in your post, and I've seen many vegetarians do on Feministing before) without basically giving one another the finger? Without basically shouting "I'm better than you!" while we do it?
Or if we cannot extend this simple courtesy towards one another just leave each other alone. Sheesh!
I'm tired of my opinions about eating meat (my HONEST opinions) being misconstrued as judgements or an attempt to shame other people or push my beliefs on them. As a vegan - I am constantly having meat pushed on me - every other commercial, at every family/friend gathering, anytime I'm at a restaurant - I'm forced to endure people putting stuff that HORRIFIES me into their mouths.
I honestly think eating meat is evil. That is my opinion and I think that meat eaters and vegans will get along easier if meat eaters stop getting defensive about my opinion. Certainly - if meat eaters have a right to talk about (constantly) how tasty animals are as food - than I have a right to tell them that I think it's hideous without being accused of trying to force my beliefs on them.
Why do you have to call meat eaters "evil?" Why can't you just present your opinions without naming-calling? You can say you don't believe in it for moral reasons without getting into name-calling. This goes for people on both sides. You call them evil and guess what? They're not going to listen anymore to anything you have to say. Maybe you have some valid points but it no longer matters because they're not listening.
And realize the amount of privilege that comes from being able to live a vegan life. It's not really nice to call someone who's only "crime" is not being as privileged as you "evil."
This person didn't call meat-eaters "evil." They called meat-EATING evil. That's their opinion. Granted, I wouldn't say that myself as I think most people highly dislike opinions bluntly opposing things they feel completely entitled to and will take it personally. That's exactly the problem - people make meat-eating a private/personal rather than a public/societal issue - thus eliding the problem. Also, being vegan is no more of a privilege than is eating meat. Eating meat is privilege over other animals. Any time someone tries to tell me being vegan is a privilege, I will throw it right back at them. Being human is a privilege. Suggesting you are less privileged simply because you eat meat or other animal products is an incredible generality at best and a meaningless excuse at worst. Most of the people within my economic/social privilege range are as far away from veganism as could be.
Calling meat eating evil is the same as calling those that engage in the act evil. I really fail to see much difference.
And the privilege is that in terms or money and education. Veganism is not taught in most crappily funded public schools (or in the well-funded private schools for that matter!). It also isn't easily afforded by many parents that can barely afford to put food on the table as it is. Or have to work 3 jobs and barely have the time and energy to go SEARCHING for a store that carries vegan-friendly alternatives. In lower-income neighborhoods places like that simply are not available. So yes, it is a privilege to be able to afford to eat this way. And it is a privilege to have even learned about healthy vegan alternatives.
But this is a conversation that has been had over and over and over again on these boards and is not relevant to the OP. So I'm done.
"Or have to work 3 jobs and barely have the time and energy to go SEARCHING for a store that carries vegan-friendly alternatives."
There are definitely a huge range of vegan alternatives to meat. Boca, Morningstar, Field Roast, and Tofutti are just a few examples of companies that offer the vegan alternatives that I think you are speaking of. I will agree that these kinds of products are very expensive. I'm not sure, though, that this example can be used as an arguement of privilege. I'm a vegan, and I would never advocate that anyone make these products the basis of their diet. Vegans, and everyone else for that matter, should make whole fruits and vegetables the basis of their diets, not fancy meat-free products. It is possible to buy several pounds of fruits and vegetables for under twenty dollars at the nearest grocery store.
"And it is a privilege to have even learned about healthy vegan alternatives."
I don't see how this is a privilege, either. I definitely didn't learn about veganism at school. I found out by accident, really, on the computer at home. I just don't see how learning about something like veganism is a privilege. I think that if someone truly wanted to learn more about vegetarianism/veganism, no matter what kind of income that person has, that that person would find a way. If someone didn't have a computer at home, there's always a library they could find to get access to information.
Hate the sin but love the sinner, eh? Geez, we haven't heard THAT one before. How very unique and non-judgmental.
I didn't call meat eaters evil - I said the ACT of eating meat is evil. Isn't there a difference? And besides - it IS my honest opinion. Most of the time - I don't give people my honest opinion and I just bite my tongue, precisely because people misconstrue my opinion on the subject of meat eating, as a judgement on them. I think that we all judge others to a degree - on things that others do that we disagree with...It doesn't mean we disapprove of that persons entire being. This is how it is possible for me to be in a relationship with a meat eater... He doesn't try and accuse me of hating him, simply because I hate that he eats meat.
For example - I'm sure many feminists think that it's evil to protest abortion clinics... Does that mean that you judge someone's entire character based on one evil thing that they do?
Do you think you are better than someone protesting an abortion clinic? Or do you simply just disagree with their decision to protest abortion?
Making moral judgments about what other people put into their bodies is not a feminist act.
Sorry, really gotta disagree. Sometimes, what someone else puts in their body is of relevant social concern. If the guy down the street murders small children to eat, I get to judge him pretty hard. Likewise, folks who advocate for a vegetarian or vegan diet see meat eating as a social problem -- it's unethical because it causes other beings to suffer, or because it contributes to pollution, or because it uses more energy and has a greater environmental impact than vegetables, etc -- and so people who engage in it don't get to use the "don't judge my personal decisions" defense.
Trying to make a parallel between criticizing the social and environmental impact of meat eating (and therefore saying that people who engage in it may be unethical) and the private decisions that women make about their bodies is really unfair.
To be clear: I'm not endorsing MLF's argument, I'm just saying that it's reasonable to make moral judgments about what people eat, and that it's not fair to compare that to sexual / health decisions.
Sorry, make that some folks who advocate for a vegetarian or vegan diet see meat eating as a social problem.
The babyeater analogy is hyperbolic.
I am not the first person to suggest that judging women morally for their eating behaviors is problematic from a feminist perspective. You might find this relevant or interesting: http://kateharding.net/2008/07/14/quote-of-the-day-classic-edition/ .
Also I didn't actually make that response to a critique of the cultural practice of meat eating. I made it in response to a moralistic statement about the consumption of meat as horrific and evil.
The babyeater analogy is hyperbolic.
I am not the first person to suggest that judging women morally for their eating behaviors is problematic from a feminist perspective. You might find this relevant or interesting: http://kateharding.net/2008/07/14/quote-of-the-day-classic-edition/ .
Also I didn't actually make that response to a critique of the cultural practice of meat eating. I made it in response to a moralistic statement about the consumption of meat as horrific and evil.
Eew, weird, my "back" button did that.
"I honestly think eating meat is evil. That is my opinion and I think that meat eaters and vegans will get along easier if meat eaters stop getting defensive about my opinion."
Because getting defensive when someone calls you evil is TOTALLY unreasonable, amirite?
Just to make it clear - I never go around telling people they are evil. Just like many of the people here think rape is evil - I think raping cows and forcing them into pregnancies is evil. Deal with it.
You don't go around calling people evil, but you come to a forum where you know that people eat meat, and say "eating meat is evil"? Seems a little disingenuous?
Perhaps if you want to get a less defensive, more constructive response, you might try to say "eating meat is unethical" rather than "evil." It's amazing the clam debates people will have about ethics, when they're unwilling or unable to have an equally honest discussion about "morals."
Erm, make that calm (not "clam") discussion. I really fail at the proofreading tonight.
Yes, many people here think that rape is evil. In turn, they probably also think that RAPISTS ARE EVIL. That's where your argument here seems to fall apart. There are very few people here that I have seen say that rape is evil but really good people just happen to engage in this evil, horrible act. And even more few people that make that argument make any sort of sense.
i think rape is horrendously evil. and while i think rapists need to be held accountable for their evil actions, they are not 100% evil people. to say otherwise is to oversimplify human behvavior. we are much too complicated to be TOTALLY evil or TOTALLY good. (and its way too reductionist to base a person's entire character on one act. it just is.)
similarly for meat eating (as mlf pointed out in a previous comment) people who eat meat are not necessarily EVIL. they are just participating in an act that mlf deems evil. and perhaps people who engage in that act need to be held accountable, learn about why that act is harmful, etc
actually, not to split hairs, but your approach would be an animal welfare approach. Animal rights is based more on abolition of use of animals in any way shape or form.
Even though I am a vegetarian, most vegans would probably think of me as being a proponent of animal welfare rather than rights because I do consume animal products and utilize animal products. animal rights is at least partially about the concern for the rights of animals not to be used in any way for human entertainment, consumption or work.
Your statement is not correct.
I think you are confusing animal rights with animal welfare (as PETA often does as well). Animal Rights is more about the abolition of animal exploitations - which means no farms, no vivisection labs, no domesticated animals, no circus, no zoos (that would be the ideal anyway).
Also - I get really irritated when people try to justify eating meat because other animals do it. Other animals rape, they eat their own babies, they kill babies from others out of the same species to further their own blood line. Animals do A LOT of things that human beings wouldn't tolerate (at least, not the better of us) in our own cultures. Thus - because lions eat meat, is not a good enough reason for humans to do it.
There are reasons people eat meat - and none of them have to do with the fact that other animals eat it. There are class reasons, there are geographical reasons (inuit populations for example), and MOST of the time - taste.
I don't believe people can eat meat or any animal products and technically be for animal rights (animal welfare, yes). If you want to know what animal rights are REALLY about (and a good cratique about PETA's hatred towards women) you should read some stuff by Gary Francione - http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/
sorry, I just want to be really clear on this.
you cannot believe in animal rights and also eat meat. they are mutually exclusive. please see this definition. and there is enough misinformation about vegetarianism out there! we don't need more!
I'm putting this definition in a second time because people seem to be using their own definition of animal rights, when it actually has a very specific meaning, and calls for something very different than a welfare approach. advocating for animal rights is actually quite a radical approach.
this is what animal rights is from wikipedia:
"Animal rights, also referred to as animal liberation, is the idea that the most basic interests of animals should be afforded the same consideration as the similar interests of human beings.[2] Advocates approach the issue from different philosophical positions but agree that animals should be viewed as legal persons and members of the moral community, not property, and that they should not be used as food, clothing, research subjects, or entertainment.[3]"
I support your arguments, but I would go to the original source rather than quoting wikipedia.
I'm using wikipedia for its simplicity and speed. Those who want to know more can search for it themselves. I'm a grad student. I know how to cite things and how evil wikipedia is in general, but it is useful for quick things like this.
Please don't lecture me about what I cite. If you know of better citations and have more time to add to what I have said or to correct what I have said, please feel free to reply and do so.
Thanks for the respectful clarification; I'll be more careful with my terminology in the future.
I just wanted to thank everyone who responded. It was interesting reading your opinions. I'm not going to comment any further because it's kind of a threadcrap, but I do thank everyone for taking the time to comment and discuss with myself and others animal rights vs. welfare and the morality of eating meat.
Shaming? On Feministing? I can barely contain my shock.
So what, now one can't be an animal rights activist and still eat meat? What the fuck is that shit? What about those of us who literally can't survive without meat? It's not that uncommon you know, given that we're omnivorous creatures. What about those of us who campaign to save the environment, who protest the killing of animals solely for fur, who oppose factory farming, who never consume the meat or produce of animals who are factory farmed or kept in battery cages?
What about those campaigning to get pets fixed? Who keep their pets inside so they don't destroy any native wildlife? You think you can pass judgement on someone just because they eat meat?
Give me a fucking break!
Thats welfare, not animal rights. Saying you're for animal rights and eating meat doesn't make sense, since you don't think animals have rights, just that you should be somewhat nice to them before you exploit and kill them.
Well excuse me for needing meat to survive. I guess I'll just go die now, I'm sure the animals would appreciate it.
Very few people need it to survive, and not to mention the health benefits of being vegan. Really, give us at least the respect to define our movement, as a feminist I'm sure you're familiar with the frustrations of people not taking your activism seriously.
I am curious...how do you gauge "needing" meat?
My body has trouble absorbing iron. The amount of iron in green vegetables does not remotely compare to the iron in red meat, and the iron in read meat is easier for the human body to absorb. If I don't eat red meat I get severe anaemia.
I also have problems with my metabolism, which cause me to lose weight far too quickly, and I'm often badly underweight.
I have tried vegetarianism before, and yes, I researched and replaced the meat in my diet carefully, but both times I've tried it I had doctors tell me I needed to start eating meat again because I was becoming underweight, malnourished and anaemic.
Thanks for answering. I am a vegetarian (not preachy or pushy by any means, also anti-PETA) and often have people say "oh I could NEVER stop eating meat, I need my meat!" But how you said it made it sound like, yes you indeed did need meat for your health, not just like people who say it to me to try to irritate me when they find out I am vegetarian. So I was curious as to what that meant, thank you for your honesty! Sorry you have people on here deciding to shame rather than educate, vegans/vegetarians that do that really drive me nuts. Sends the whole animal liberation thing backwards in my opinion
Thank you for this :)
And for what it's worth, I honestly don't think badly of vegans/vegetarians. I need meat for my health, but I've cut down to the minimum possible and I try to only eat free range.
It really bugs me when people say shit like "You're a vegetarian? Do you hate it when people eat meat in front of you?" as if vegetarians are some sort of freak-show (I've seen it happen -_-). Honestly, I got enough negative comments from my dad when I was a vegetarian to last me a lifetime.
Still, not every meat-eater is like that, and I hope to educate the ones who are.
I'm generally not pushy about vegetarianism, but I don't understand what about your problem necessitates meat (instead of, say, a vegetarian diet with iron supplements)?
Iron supplements aren't as readily absorbed as iron from food. If someone already has a problem absorbing iron, iron supplements aren't going to be nearly as helpful as eating foods with a very high iron content. Bodies are more complicated than just be vegetarian, add iron, everything will be fine--my mother has a genetic type of anemia, and no matter how many high-iron veggies she eats and iron supplements she takes, she can't get healthy iron levels without red meat.
no, you aren't an animal rights activist. you are an animal welfarist, and that's fine.
animal rights has a specific meaning, which people on this thread don't seem to understand. this comes out a a particular philosophy and sensibility, it's not a colloquial term you can throw about just because you like animals and want better treatment for them. certainly, those who advocate for animal rights often advocate for better animal welfare, as they know that it is highly unlikely that our society will stop using animals for anything any time soon. They would probably be very happy that you want to alleviate the suffering of animals, but please know that that doesn't make you a proponent of animal rights.
this is not about shaming, this is about the correct usage of a word.
this is from wikipedia:
"Animal rights, also referred to as animal liberation, is the idea that the most basic interests of animals should be afforded the same consideration as the similar interests of human beings.[2] Advocates approach the issue from different philosophical positions but agree that animals should be viewed as legal persons and members of the moral community, not property, and that they should not be used as food, clothing, research subjects, or entertainment.[3]"
It's very specific, as you can see.
Thank you for the clarification. You're right, I believe in animal welfare. I was unaware of the distinction, thanks for clearing it up.
The definition difference is not shaming, but Skippy's comments were. I object to shaming anyone just because they eat meat, especially when you don't know surrounding circumstance.
I am a veg. So according to your idea of what it takes to believe in animal rights, I am right on.
But I did want to bring to everyone's attention, that it is possible to believe that animals can be treated humanely, even if you consume them. For example, one can do the research to find out where you can buy animal products that were taken from animals in a humane way (ie: eggs that are truely free-range, or cage free).
While doing the research, I would not be surprised if you take the step to go veg! But, I do know some that are unable to take that step, but still make the commitment to only consume animals/products that were not caged or mistreated, prior to slaughter etc.
Or, you know, I could just focus on the 50 - 80 hours a week of work I have along with the existing challenges of daily living and just hope that the eggs and fancy grass-fed beef I have the ~luxury~ and ~privilege~ and ~access~ to ~sometimes~ be able to drop the extra cash on are as humane as the package claims them to be.
Thanks for this comment; I was thinking of how to make a point about believing in humane treatment of livestock/farm animals and you've done it very succinctly here.
I know this is going to sound really abrasive, so I'm apologizing beforehand.
After growing up on a ranch/dairy farm for a good portion of my childhood, I know that an animal can have its rights respected and live a happy life, but still end up on my dinner plate. As a child, I was resentful towards the idea, but as I grew up I began to grasp a real sense towards the food chain. It is not unnatural for people to consume meat, it is just unnatural at the rate and method at which we do it today.
If you respect animal rights and enjoy meat, you can encourage manufacturers to have more ethical practices. You don't have to throw the baby out with the bath water, so to speak.
I've defended PETA on many occasions, but for some reason, this particular ad crosses the line for me. I'm not completely sure why, it just does. Go figure.
It always comes down to whose ox is being gored.
Hammer meet head of the nail.
If this ad "crosses the line" then what about all their previous ads? This is just one offense in a long line of offenses. The "Holocaust on your plate" wasn't crossing the line? How about the "I'd rather go naked" campaigns that basically said "Look! Naked ladies!". Or the street demonstrations where they put scantily clad women in cages?
PETA's been living across the line for years.
A Holocaust on your plate does not offend me because that is what industrial food production is: a horrible tragedy of unimaginable proportions.
As for the other "sexist" ads by PETA, I don't know, this one seems to enter some kind of weird, mundane, everyday life territory. Although I do agree in theory to what it says and the ideas behind it, I'm scratching my head more over this one because of its somewhat lack of sensationalism and sex appeal. Does that make sense?
I get the whole sex sells idea and the objectification of women's bodies thing that offends in other ads, but for this one in particular, I see absolutely no reason why they could not have included a fat male in the ad as well.
A Holocaust on your plate does not offend me because that is what industrial food production is: a horrible tragedy of unimaginable proportions.
Oh for fuck's sake, did you really go there?
Yes, I went there, and I am a Jew.
Oh, well, if you're a Jew you get a pass. Using the Holocaust as a metaphor is only okay then.
Right on. Because as a Jewish vegetarian, it totally doesn't bother me when other Jews state that an attempt to torture and murder my relatives and eliminate our culture and all of our people from the face of the earth is morally equivalent to factory farming of chickens to feed people.
(internet sarcasm disclaimer)
And sorry, I really didn't want to even address this one, but I couldn't ignore it coming from a Jewish person. I respect that we Jews have a wide diversity of opinion, and that respect for animals is a tenet of Jewish faith and teaching... and I also am pretty well aware of how cruel and disgusting industrial animal production is... but really?? If you believe that animals are morally equivalent to people and that killing an animal is morally equivalent to killing a person, then I can't really argue with you on that one, it's just a different way of looking at the world. But if you don't believe that, then how can you possibly believe that it's not insulting and trivializing our people to compare us to factory farm animals??
(I hope you know I was being sarcastic, because I was.)
Yes, certainly! The "right on" was to you, and the rest of my response should have been to Skippy. Sorry for any confusion.
It's insulting and trivializing to animals to say that comparing humans to animals is inherently insulting and trivializing (it can be, but this is not often not the case at all). I don't use the metaphor because I prefer not to use absent referents even when I am completely aware of the absent one, because I don't want to get into the added argument and because I think it will only make people react just as you're reacting, which isn't really adding anything to the discussion but rather side-tracking it.
It's insulting and trivializing to animals to say that comparing humans to animals is inherently insulting and trivializing
Yeah, except that animals don't give a shit because they're animals.
It isn't a situation where Jews are being compared to animals, there is no claim in any of PETA's campaigns (and I'm not defending them - I can't stand PETA either) where they claim Jews are like animals - that isn't what is being used as a metaphor.. I wish people will get that. Yes, Human beings are different from cows, just like cats are different from dogs... Can't I compare dogs and cats - explain their similarities without claiming that they are the same? They both move on four legs, they both feel pain...
I can see similarities between how slaves were treated and how we treat animals... Just like I can see similarities between how Jews were treated during the holocaust and how slaves were treated in the US when slavery was legal. Was black slavery in the US the same as the holocaust? Nope. But do they have similarities? I think so.
"The animals of the world exist for their own reasons. They were not made for humans any more than black people were made for whites or women for men." - Alice Walker
When you choose to call something "The Holocaust on Your Plate" you're willingly evoking one of the strongest memories of human genocide in your viewers.
So the real issue is how good is your comparison? Is it good enough to warrant evoking the imagery of some of the worst actions in the history of humanity? Because that's what you're going for when you say "Holocaust on your plate".
It's problematic in the same way that people use the word "rape" to describe something that's not actually rape.
When you use genocide to describe something that's not genocide you run the risk of diminishing, triggering, and desensitizing.
It's problematic in the same way that people use the word "rape" to describe something that's not actually rape. When you use genocide to describe something that's not genocide you run the risk of diminishing, triggering, and desensitizing.
Yes. Thank you for framing this in a way that's so relevant to this community!
What about when PETA members dressed up in KKK garb? That wasn't crossing the line in your opinion?
I mean, I hesitate to mention a time when PETA has NOT crossed the line.
The Holocaust was genocide. It wasn't a tragedy, it was a concerted effort to eliminate humans of certain ethnic groups and the disabled. It was not about expedience. It was not about using the human corpses as anything tangible. The goal was to kill humans.
Killing animals is a means to an end. Killing humans in the Holocaust was the end.
If your view is so distorted as to lump those two things together then you're not going to understand why people think you're crossing a line when you're clearly crossing it.
Are all holocausts genocide? I don't think they are. I think you're referring to The Holocaust, which specifically means what occurred during WWII. But the term implies mass slaughter, which occurs on a daily basis to the animals that are simply the "means" to your "end." What are those means, exactly? Health, taste, appetite? In the face of a wealth of alternatives, your "means" is unethical.
Huh?
There was one Holocaust. It's a term that refers to one thing. Therefore there can't be "all Holocausts".
Holocaust itself means burnt offering, not mass slaughter.
Taste is not means. It's an end. The end of factory farming is human sustenance and satisfaction of physical desires. The slaughter is the means to this satisfaction, not the end.
Conversely the slaughter of the Holocaust was the end itself. There was no goal other than the killing, i.e. cremating the bodies.
Therefore making a comparison to animal slaughter and genocide is inane and insensitive. The goal of factory farming isn't to kill every cow or chicken on the planet and then destroy their remains. It's a shitty comparison that acts like the lives of animals slaughtered for food are the same as humans killed to satisfy racist bloodlust.
No, there have been many holocausts and there are still ongoing holocausts. The problem is that many people choose to think of only one, the one involving European people.
NO.
There was ONE Holocaust. There have been and still are many genocides occurring in the world.
There have been and continue to be many genocides. When most people say "The Holocaust," they are referring to the murder of Jews (and sometimes also referring to the simultaneous murder of gypsies, queer folk, disabled people, certain religious people, and political prisoners) in Europe in the 1930s-40s.
When people use the word "holocaust" as a lower-case noun without without "the," they usually mean a vast destructive act (for example, it was used this way during the cold war to talk about the possibility of nuclear war). But I've never heard anyone refer to another genocide as "a holocaust" or "the Holocaust."
So now meat makes people fat? But I thought it was carbs. Or wait, I thought it was fat because why else would a lot of things be low-fat? Isn't it something how fat and protein and carbs have all been said to make people fat? Without those, there's nothing to give us energy.
Wait, I thought I was fat 'cause I was a bad person or a rotten mother or something...
Your comment reminds me of how the surgeon general (I think? this story is a little fuzzy in my mind) said years after the "fat is bad for you" craze that in reality, any fat besides saturated fat is actually really good for you, but that the prevailing attitude was that explaning to the public about the different types of fat would be too confusing. So they just said "fat is bad" and people cut it all out of their diets. He said that you could drink olive oil straight and it wouldn't harm you.
I've read only trans fats are bad and saturated fats might be okay. It does make sense that our body wouldn't respond well to a fat that has been created by humans (except for the few natural ones). I wonder if fat (the molecule AND the appearance of fat)=bad will ever stop being common "knowledge".
PETA has completely lost sight of their "values." What do overweight women have to do with maltreatment of animals?
Dontcha get it? Overweight people ARE animals! Wakka wakka.
In their attempt to meet their goal PETA tends to treat people like animals. Beautiful people are valuable for their skin, and fat people's emotions are merely something to be consumed toward an end.
PETA tends to treat people like animals
From an animal-rights perspective, this is actually the point, though. The idea is that if likening people to animals (which is what we ARE, after all) offends someone, that someone needs to rethink his/her attitude toward animals.
So we're going to achieve animal rights by treating people like animals?
Sorry, not really seeing it. And even if that did work as a tactic it would be ethically wrong.
-- and who want to have enough energy to chase a beach ball --
Okay, if they really want to use selfish motivators to get people to go vegetarian, why not run with this part of their press release? Takling about having more energy is something that can target everyone, regardless of size, and it's a positive goal instead of a shaming goal. I'm a small person, but the whole reason I run three times a week is because I want more energy and to be able to run longer and faster without feeling like I'm going to pass out. It's almost like they try to be as offensive as possible.
I see nothing offensive about the ad, being overweight isn't healthy. It sends a good message about weight in America.
There is a difference between being somewhat overweight and unhealthily obese. The ad shames anyone who isn't PETA's perfect, stick-thin image of beauty, not to mention that this is not the way people who -are- unhealthily obese should be motivated.
Besides, the ad focuses not on health, but solely looks.
You can't hate people for their own good.
THIS. SO MANY TIMES THIS. Right the fuck on. Thank you for phrasing this in such a pointed way, it's appropriate not just here but in any instance when people are smugly framing their hate as "constructive criticism."
I can't really take the credit. I read it somewhere else: maybe Shapely Prose or Shakesville? Anyway, it's a phrase worth remembering because it's applicable to so many situations.
Oh, Sarah MC, I kind of heart you right now. Thanks for tackling this here.
Overweight is subjective, fat != unhealthy, vegetarianism/veganism does not automatically mean healthy (or thin).
Yes, because lord knows fat people never, ever, ever hear that from anyone. Thank God PETA is here to enlighten us.
Oh, come on. It's one thing to say, "maybe a lot of Americans should consider a healthier vegetarian diet as an alternative to consuming so much unhealthy industrial meat" and quite another thing to say "fat people are whales!!!!"
WOoooooOOOoooo!!
Welcome to the fat shaming segment, our regular feature here at Feministing!
/headdesk
In my opinion, any message that implies that some group deserves to be shamed and mocked or that -- like PETA's, here -- actually shames and mocks a group of people is inherently the opposite of "a good message."
I'm sorry, but I fail to see how sending the message that it's okay to shame people for their appearance is in any way okay. Seriously, even if your points about fat being unhealthy were true (they aren't, but don't take my word for it, there's lots of good stuff about this all over the internet), how does that in any way justify the constant shaming directed at fat people? In fact, I would argue that a whole lot of people of any weight or size would be a whole lot healthier if we didn't have constant messages of hate, shame, and lack of worth being tossed at people just because they don't look like supermodels or body-builders.
Yet another reason that PETA pisses me off. And first off, being vegetarian doesn't mean that you're going to lose weight or that you are inherently skinnier or healthier than someone that eats meat. I mean PETA makes everyone feel like shit anyways but this sucks especially. Ugh.
PETA makes everyone feel like shit anyways
Most people - not all, but most - in this society have at least some degree of choice about what they eat. Information about how that food is produced and where it's coming from have been in the mainstream news for decades. If you have the option to eat even a McDonald's salad (not perfect in its own right, of course) instead of an ethically far-worse bacon cheeseburger, or to cut back on some other expense to buy local free-range meat (still not perfect) instead of the cheapest factory-farmed, assembly-line mass-slaughtered, and you make the less ethical choice, you (in the general sense) know what you're doing. And if you don't fee bad about it, for the agony it causes animals and human beings alike, there's something wrong.
I recognize that some people don't have realistic choices, which is a problem in and of itself. But most of Feministing's regular readers, I infer from various discussions, do have them. And for people who do have the choice and choose to remain uninformed (which takes active effort, at this point) or choose not to care... Well, yes. They're going to get their feelings hurt by people who do care. But their hurt feelings are not the problem in this situation.
Well, yes. They're going to get their feelings hurt by people who do care. But their hurt feelings are not the problem in this situation.
Yeah, I'm sure that African-Americans who see PETA's comparisons to lynching are just being selfish when their "feelings" are "hurt." And us Jews, our reactions to PETA's comparisons to the Holocaust aren't the problems in this situation.
Fuck that shit. What do you have to say about African-American or Jewish vegetarians? Oh, they've made the choice that's pleasing to you and yet you still want to step on them. Nice.
I understood "always making everyone" at as referring to guilt-based tactics overall. If I misunderstood that, then I apologize. If I did understand the general thrust of the initial discussion correctly, I stand by my statement.
PETA's pissing me off, too. You know what would restore my mood and stamina right now? A nice, fat steak oughtta do the trick.
This is the beginning of my steak-eating campaign. I will eat a steak every time I cop onto PETA demeaning women yet again.
It is the opposite of a hunger strike. Sort of a nourishment aggression.
Feel free to name my new steak-eating nourishment aggression campaign, if it pleases you.
Fat, feminism, and for many years I was a fat vegetarian.
Not only is Peta ignorant and offensive, but just spout lies. Vegetarianism, hell, veganism never made me thin. Shaming and attacking women in particular is just disgusting.
Of course, yet another way I saw PETA exploiting: a gas-guzzling camper roaming the country (saw them at a gas station; it was not biofuel!). Perfectly okay for this organization to exploit the environment while they drive around shaming people about not eating meat! [shakes head] Their marketing is mind-boggling.
BTW: I've discovered and responded much more positively to environmental/animal rights groups that educate, not exploit and shame. I can't think of a single campaign that has been instructive in one way or another by PETA.
With PETA's penchant for showing naked women, I wonder why they didn't show a picture of an actual overweight woman, instead of the cartoony drawing. Not that it would make the billboard any better. I'll join in the chorus of f*ck you, PETA.
At this point, I think PeTA probably appreciates the free publicity from Feministing. Considering the amount of other offensive ad campaigns that get ignored or defended on the grounds of "potentially empowering decisions," and the utter disinterest in education about animal and environmental causes, I'm getting really sick of it. Is the ad out of bounds? Yes. Is the hypocritical, unproductive, and privilege-laden grudge match with PeTA getting old? Yes. The ad is supposed to generate controversy and anger, and thereby attention. Feministing is helping.
I agree. I am getting really tired of seeing PeTA's campaigns on Feministing.
Yes, PeTA is horrible and has no limits because their entire philosophy is built on 'the end justifies the means'. At any cost they will continue to "shock" (aka offend) in order to get people to pay attention to them. And pay attention we have.
The publicity they garner for themselves hasn't made anyone go veggie or vegan, though. I've heard some people make that argument -- that complaining about them is doing just what they want in terms of getting attention. True, but what kind of attention is it? I have yet to hear of someone going "babes in lettuce bikinis -- time to go veggie!" or "ugh, I'm fat and have bad sex -- time to go vegan!" Mostly, what I hear is "lol, PETA is stupid, time for a cheeseburger" or "People for the Eating of Tasty Animals, time to barbecue!"
I question what PETA wants to gain. Shock publicity is not going to make for a substantial gain in the number of people going veggie or vegan.
This. Anybody with some knowledge of marketing knows that shock saturation can actually turn a valid, marketable point into a fringe idea if it gets overused or used incorrectly.
So PETA gets press. So what? If all their press is how crazy and insensitive they are it's actually going to hurt them, not help.
The more we call out their marketing the less effective it gets.
Ah, but you see... obviously they're not actually trying to turn anyone vegetarian or vegan, because if that was their true goal, they would have figured out years ago that their absurd ad campaigns were just alienating sympathetic people, and providing everyone else with fodder for jokes.
When a non-profit organization keeps doing something so ineffective, the only conclusion I can draw is that they have wealthy donors (private or corporate), and the staff of the organization is basically doing what the donors want to keep getting their paycheck.
But they *have* made people go veg or vegan. The "Meat Your Meat" video has influenced a lot of people I know to at least consider going vegetarian. The anti-fur campaign has made an impact to some degree.
However, that is not the point. The point is I don't really want to see PeTA on Feministing anymore. The arguments are not constructive and make me want to hit my head against a wall.
So agree. Every time a Peta ad gets posted it's just the same old arguments/comments. It's getting to the point where it kinda seems like it's just something to post on a slow day to get some outrage.
Not to be so negative on the posts or anything, I love my Feministing!
Thank you for posting this. I am in complete agreement. Every single time something about PETA makes it onto Feministing, there is absolutely no constructive dialogue. It devolves into who can shame and Other the most.
Vegetarian/vegan does not equal thin.
Thin does not equal healthy.
And PETA defend the rights of animals while rubbishing those of female humans. Delightful. They couldn't be doing more to denigrate the cause of animal welfare if they tried.
Hello, I have been a vegetarian for 10+ years, I can't remember the last time I even ate anything "fast food" (besides the occasional pizza slice, I suppose), I don't own a car and usually get around by walking or biking, I live in a small apartment and keep my energy usage low, I go to local farmers' markets and all that jazz, and I wear a size 16 most of the time.
Just sayin'.
I'm just wondering, if PETA really did want to be completly stupid and promote themselves with the idea that vegetarian=thin, why didn't they show a fat man? Or why not a fat woman AND a fat man? After all, don't they want to get more PEOPLE to support them, not just more women?
Maybe they just have a simple strategy--sexy naked women ads to appeal to men, and fat, embarassed women ads to appeal to women. Pathetic.
Or maybe they think women are easier to recruit into animal welfare activism-there is already a stereotype out there about that! (See "Puppies aren't really that adorable", http://community.feministing.com/2009/07/puppies-arent-really-that-ador.html)
I'll just take her word for it since she lives in her body and I do not.
Oops. Wrong placement. Move along, please; nothing to see here.
I'm vegan, and I do not support PETA. I never have, and I never will.
That being said, I know plenty of overweight vegans, so their ad holds no water.
I hate PETA so much.
I'm still having trouble grasping that PeTA actually thought it was okay to make this advertisement. For so long, they've grasped at straws, claiming that they do not intend to hurt women with their shocking style of marketing. This hurts women, specifically. I am convinced that Ingrid Newkirk and PeTA will not stop until every animal is treated with more respect than women.
This ad is icky, but I'm going to remember it, because it sums up vegetarians for me.
Not across the board, but for the most part, the men I know who are total vegetarians are control freaks (Ghandi, Hitler). The women have self esteem problems.
This ad targets them both making those who are already vegetarians comfy, without actually having a prayer of recruiting anyone!
Hitler fail. Hitler is not a vegetarian. Thanks for playing the famous evil veggie game. Come again when you have a valid point and aren't making a swipe against a perfectly reasonable lifestyle choice.
He was an animal right's activist though. He made it illegal to shoot dogs in Germany. I'd also like to point out that he/she put Hitler's name next to Gandhi's. Not exactly the "famous evil veggie game." Finally, and I hate to be nit-picky, but I think you meant to say that "Hitler *was* not a vegetarian," since Hitler is dead.
Quite true.
1. You can't say bringing up Hitler is meant to be anything less than inflammatory.
2. Hitler loving his dog in no way makes him a decent person. Being veg*n doesn't make a person good or bad.
3. If you are going to start grammar checking my posts.. well, good luck.
I love how you obtained such inaccurate inferences. I'll tackle each of your points.
1. "You can't say bringing up Hitler is meant to be anything less than inflammatory." Agreed, but stating facts isn't inflammatory. Making comparisons on the other hand is. No one said all vegans are the equivalent to Hitler. Instead, it was stated that Hitler was a vegetarian, which he was but not for moral reasons. He had gastric problems. And no I didn't get my facts from Wikipedia. I got them from Snopes.com.
2."Hitler loving his dog in no way makes him a decent person. Being veg*n doesn't make a person good or bad." Agreed again. But I didn't say Hitler loved his dog. I said that he made it illegal to shoot dogs and this is early evidence of his Antisemitism: you can shoot a Jew, but you can't shoot a dog. I also like how you inferred that I was defending Hitler. My point was that FLT was putting the good next to the bad, rendering your snark meaningless.
3."If you are going to start grammar checking my posts.. well, good luck." You should be thankful. I could have had a field day with such an obvious mistake. I let a lot of grammar errors slide: misspellings, punctuation, etc. A verb, however, is the most essential word group in language, and the tense of a verb is imperative. I ask that you not take it personally. My correction wasn't an attempt to make you look foolish. It's just a tick I have.
Wow. I'm really sorry that most of the vegetarians you know in real life are control freaks and have self esteem issues. I really, really hope that this ad doesn't sum up vegetarianism to you. There are plenty of people out there who are vegan or vegetarian and are perfectly civil and great individuals.
...And this is why I cannot stand having PeTA ads on Feministing anymore. People take PeTA's ads and apply the absurdity to ALL vegetarians/vegans in a hateful way.
1. Avoiding meat on a doctor's order is not vegetarian. Hitler is often brought up during these discussions, to see more google every veg*n thread derail ever.
2. Please link me some info on the Hitler dog rule. The reason I talked about Hitler's dog is because for all my googling all I could find with Hitler + dog is stories about his great love for his dog. Hitler + laws + dogs doesn't filter out any pages that match what you were talking about. Beyond any of that I agree it is despicable to elevate dogs above humans. But I'm failing to see what that has to do with the majority of veg*ns. It would have been one thing to compare PETA to Hitler instead of implying all veg*ns have control issues.
3. Was a snip at myself. I tend to bang comments out too fast to proofread.
You might try responding to me. Oh, and being a vegetarian means avoiding meat. Period. Reasons for becoming a vegetarian are irrelevant. If you avoid meat for the rest of your life, then you avoid meat.
Sadly, I do not have a link about Hitler's law about the dogs. I learned in my college history class where my professor is an expert in the Holocaust and WWII. You can't find everything on the internet. Sometimes you have to look in books :)
Finally, you are under the impression that I am somehow vindicating the original argument because you keep applying statements I never made. I don't think vegans are control freaks. I merely wanted to correct a couple of your statements.
Jesus Christ. I apologize deeply and sincerely for responding to the wrong post and deciding not to clutter the internet with a double post.
Avoiding meat does not a vegetarian make. Hitler still ate meat but mostly avoided it.
How about a reference for the dog info? Does that suit your highness better?
You might try responding to me. Oh, and being a vegetarian means avoiding meat. Period. Reasons for becoming a vegetarian are irrelevant. If you avoid meat for the rest of your life, then you avoid meat.
Sadly, I do not have a link about Hitler's law about the dogs. I learned in my college history class where my professor is an expert in the Holocaust and WWII. You can't find everything on the internet. Sometimes you have to look in books :)
Finally, you are under the impression that I am somehow vindicating the original argument because you keep applying statements I never made. I don't think vegans are control freaks. I merely wanted to correct a couple of your statements.
Whoa- first let me say that the whole "go veg, be thin" theory is false. I have been a vegetarian about a month or so and am the same weight I was before. So whatever.
Second, I am kind of turned off by the whole "who loves animals more" crap going on here. I ate meat my entire life and while, no, I don't claim to have been an animal rights activist, I did love animals and it sickened me to my stomach to see them hurt. So yes, maybe I wasn't as into the cause as, let's say, vegans were, but to say, "How can you exploit animals by eating them?" Well, to that I would have said, "Fuck you, pass me the ketchup for the burger."
That is to say: just because some of us had made the decision to stop eating meat, does not make us more "moral" or "ethical". It means we've made that next step. Some people aren't ready, but they do other things to promote animal welfare that are also very important and should not be discredited just because they still eat meat. Likewise, I am not vegan so it would be easy for a vegan to harp on me for my leather shoes, but I am comfortable with the level I am at now. One step at a time please.
I do think that the "who loves animals more" style argument is pretty unproductive (and, okay, annoying), and I definitely think that it is necessary for people to sort of go at their own speed with this stuff and determine their own comfort level... BUT, I do think there's a legitimate point to be made in response to people who say "I eat meat" and "it [sickens] me to my stomach to see them hurt" in the same breath. I mean, you *do* have to kill an animal in order to eat it, and if you can't conceive of a situation in which you'd be totally okay with an animal being killed, you probably shouldn't essentially let someone else do the dirty work for you by eating the meat of an animal someone else did have to kill.
I really, really don't mean this to come off as pushy or anything, I'm just saying, there's a certain sort of conflict there. Of course, if you're totally fine with killing animals (setting aside the circumstances of their death -- I know people who would be fine with sort of traditional, well-kept small farm style livestock, but are not at all okay with the way the industry is actually run, for instance), then none of this applies to you, and there's a whole different discussion to be had.
But the underlying assumption i get from your post here is that vegetarianism/veganism is BETTER than eating meat, which I think is unhelpful.
In my 7 years as a vegetarian I was never thin. I was a vegetarian who swam competitively and I was never thin.
This is the response I got when I emailed them:
"Dear Claire,
Thank you for sharing your thoughts on PETA’s “Lose the Blubber” billboard. We apologize for any offense we may have caused; that was not our intent. We agree that a world where self-esteem is unrelated to body size would be a wonderful place. Our aim is not to insult people who are overweight but to persuade them to make a simple, positive change for their health.
While many people have found our billboard humorous, we take obesity very seriously. We want to encourage overweight people to go vegetarian to protect their health. Researchers have found that a higher body mass index is associated with a greater risk of premature death from all causes. For example, according to the American Heart Association, obesity contributes to heart disease, America’s number one cause of death. The American Dietetic Association says that vegetarians have lower rates of heart disease, cancer, diabetes, and obesity than meat-eaters do.
Studies have shown that “weight loss” diets don’t work long-term—but going vegetarian does. Studies published in the Journal of Clinical Nutrition and the New England Journal of Medicine have found that vegetarians are far less likely to be overweight than meat eaters are. By encouraging people who want to lose weight to go vegetarian instead of resorting to unhealthy diets, we hope to offer them a choice that the multimillion-dollar diet industry won’t give them: a long-term strategy for maintaining a healthy weight.
Certainly not every single vegetarian is at a healthy weight, as some have suggested our billboard implies, but there are many more meat-eaters who are obese and unhealthy. For most people, eating vegetarian meals is an effective way to achieve and maintain a healthy weight. But weight loss isn’t the only reason to try a vegetarian diet; we also promote going vegetarian as a great way to lower cholesterol and reduce the risk of many diseases. For most people, a vegetarian diet is an effective prevention strategy.
Our billboard is just one of the many ways that PETA promotes healthy vegetarian living. Other efforts include distributing free copies of our “Vegetarian Starter Kit,” hosting free public food tastings, offering meal plans and thousands of meat-free recipes at http://www.VegCooking.com, and educating people about the meat industry’s disregard for animal welfare (http://www.GoVeg.com/factoryFarming.asp) and its devastating effect on the environment (http://www.GoVeg.com/environment.asp).
To read more about how obesity can be addressed by going vegetarian, please go to http://www.GoVeg.com/obesity.asp. To read vegetarian weight-loss success stories, please visit http://www.GoVeg.com/f-veganweightloss.asp. You can order a free “Vegetarian Starter Kit” for yourself or a friend at http://www.GoVeg.com/order.asp to learn even more.
We respect your opinion on this matter. I hope this response addresses your concerns, but I also understand that you might not agree. Even among those of us who care about animals and share similar goals, there are times when there will be a difference of opinion.
We hope that among our many campaigns to help animals, there are others worthy of your support such as our low-cost spay/neuter services (http://www.HelpingAnimals.com/about_snipSponsor.asp) or our work to end cruel and unnecessary product testing on animals (http://www.CaringConsumer.com).
Thank you again for taking the time to contact us with your concerns and for all that you do to help animals!
Sincerely,
Laura McCaul
Correspondence Assistant
PETA Foundation"
Love the nerve, love the fake-tastic apology. Love it. I also love the "We know what's best for you" attitude and the fat-shaming.
Humans evolved as omnivores. You know what an omnivore is? It means something that eats everything. Plants, insects, animals, we eat it all. To suggest that eating meat is evil is suggesting that our evolution, too, is evil.
We have sharpened canines to tear flesh, while we also have flat molars to chew plants. I will agree that much of what goes on in slaughterhouses is highly unethical, and there's never a reason to torture anything. The kind of sensationalized bullshit that animal rights ad campaigns run is just that, though. Sensational.
I personally won't eat red meat, but I do eat poultry and fish because it's good for my diet, and it tastes good. I won't tell someone enjoying a steak dinner that they're horrible evil people, why should you think it's okay to do that? What people eat is up to them, meat-shaming is no different from fat-shaming. Cut it out.
If a person knows anything about PETA it's that their president is as misanthropic as they come. Ingrid Newkirk doesn't give a blinking *@#! if you or anyone is healthy or not.
Newkirk has stated that "humans are a blight on the planet." She has directed in her Will that her corpse be barbecued and eaten. Newkirk wants women consumed literally and figuratively (see Sexual Politics of Meat by Carol J. Adams about the "consumption" of women's bodies.)
I've been a strict vegetarian for over a decade. And yet generally I find people who preach about diet obnoxious. I went vegetarian after watching a 60 minutes episode about hog farming. Most people simply are unaware of the pain --horror really--that animals suffer on factory farms. For example, piglets have their tails chopped off without any pain reliever or anesthetic, and yet it's a fact pigs are more intelligent than dogs. Who in her right mind would cut off a dog's tail? Pigs and cows have feelings AND emotions.
Furthermore, there are many reasons why a woman may be overweight. Some medications shut down the metabolism, mess with enzymes in the liver, and so on. My mother was overweight but hardly ever ate! It was her medications! But people just refuse to accept this.
As a general rule I ignore PETA because the organization really does get off on creating controversy and the publicity it generates(perhaps why PETA is in bed with celebrities. Celebrities need publicity and PETA provides a means.)But in my view this latest billboard is tantamount to hate speech and should not be tolerated at all.
I could go on . . .
The billboard inspired my friend Elaine and I to do a "F(*^ PETA" video.
http://2girls1queen.tumblr.com/post/170633507/petasucks