So I have been getting a lot of protest from one commenter about my position on PETA. I just want to provide a little more evidence to back up my claim about sexism or racism in PETA’s advertisements. I simply do not think that undercutting other movements is a way to further one’s movement, no matter how noble the cause.
The list goes on and on. Displaying women and African Americans as cuts of meat, animals, or sexy and battered really is counterproductive and offensive. Juxtaposing the lynching of African Americans and the slaughter of animals can be interpreted as insensitive and dehumanizing. The historical implications of presenting minorities as “wild” animals and women literally as pieces of meat may get attention, but negative attention can undercut a movement and cause offense.
The Gender Blender Blog 
I still think that what you say just goes to show that you are significantly prioritizing human rights over animal rights – you’re approaching the subject with de facto disrespect for the movement and its believers.
Further, even if these ads are controversial or offensive, I do think it’s fair to point out that it’s not like PETA kidnapped some women, forced them into compromising positions, then took photographs. If you’re so angry about the photos, hold the women accountable who posed for them. Whatever happened to accountability? Real feminism views women as agents – not simply the perpetual victims blogs like these make them out to be.
Just because a woman voluntarily posed for these photos does not mean that she cannot be offending people just by posing for them. Just because she is a volunteering woman does not make it ok. The ads have effects on people besides the women in them. I do view the women in the ads as accountable, and I do hold PETA accountable.
I actually am really glad that you are commenting though. It really is important for people with conflicting views to read this blog and post their opinions. We are going to have to agree to disagree. I don’t believe I am being disrespectful, and I also do not think all members of PETA are in any way accountable for the offensive ads or demonstrations. I view PETA’s ads as prioritizing animal rights over human rights. I believe that there is a balance that can be struck without being offensive.
What this thread does not address so far is the use of images of the lynching of african americans and equating their deaths due to racial hatred with the slaughter of animals.
As to a presumed “de facto disrespect” for the animal rights movement, I can’t say that I see evidence of any of inherent disrespect when one chooses to promote a particular issue, e.g. feminism, just as I don’t presume that the entire animal rights movement is racist or sexist based upon the actions of advertisers and certain protesters who are so over the top I question their sanity and even their humanity.
Regarding prioritizing the rights of humans over those of animals, it’s arguably a natural trait of every species to prioritize its own survival and improvement over that of any other. An example of this preference would be a concern for malnourished third-worlders over malnourished fruit flies. I’m not saying that the farming and slaughter of animals is particularly moral — I’ve seen PETA videos — but I will say that I might be more concerned about wars and torture of humans.
These ads are so offensive! I was shocked by the ones that portrayed women who had been abused as sexy. What a horrible message to send.
I’m a strong supporter of animal liberation, and as such, I disagree with many of PeTA’s choices. The “Spice Up Your Life”, “We’d Rather Be Naked”, and “8-Second Ride” posters fall into that category. (I’m actually offended by the “8-Second Ride” poster for another reason–comparing the torture and eventual killing of an animal to bad sex is crass even by PeTA’s standards.) A disturbing number of PeTA’s campaigns seem to be nothing more than “Here are conventionally attractive naked people! Go Vegetarian!”, a message that, in addition to your concerns about sexism, just doesn’t have that much to do with the issue. I think advertising that is intended to sell social change, as opposed to a better brand of light beer, should make people think about the issue rather than just capturing their attention for a few seconds. Becoming vegan or vegetarian is a major life change, one that (I hope) requires more complex thought than is triggered by any of the three aforementioned ads.
However, I think the other ads in your sample do provoke thought. The topless pregnant woman in the cage mimics the position of a pig on an industrial pig farm. Sows are kept pregnant in cages too small for them to turn around, and when they are nursing piglets, they are often transferred to cages which keep them lying on their sides, preventing them from moving at all so that the piglets can nurse at all times. The point of this exhibit, then, is not to sell vegetarianism as sexy, but to make people think of the pig in literal terms: this animal is not pork or bacon, it is a sentient being, and this is what its life is like. Although this image is still subject to the criticism that it features a naked woman in a somewhat sexual position, I think it serves a deeper purpose than simply selling animal liberation through sex.
The “Tiger Woman” and “Wilde Tiere” (approximate translation: wild animals don’t like being caged) ads are similar in that they seek not to dehumanize the person, but to personify the animal: although animals are less intelligent than humans, they still suffer in many of the same ways from being caged. In a somewhat stronger way than the first image, however, these ads bring out feminist ideas: a woman in a cage, a sexy black woman as a “wild animal”. I believe PeTA is not condoning these stereotypes, but attempting to highlight the strange way we think of women and animals.
These themes are still stronger in the remaining “sexy” images, “Human Meat”, “Shackled”, and the “cuts of meat” picture. A version of the “cuts of meat” picture, in fact, originally appeared in Carol Adams’ book The Sexual Politics of Meat: A Feminist-Vegetarian Critical Theory, which attempted to connect the exploitation of women with the exploitation of animals. In this image, Adams seeks to point out that both women and animals commonly become “absent referents”: in pornography, women’s bodies are considered without regard for the woman’s brain; her thoughts and feelings (other than sexual desire) are often absent from mainstream pornography. Similarly, when meat is consumed, the bodies of animals are eaten without consideration for the animal itself. Although farmed animals have considerably less reason than women in pornography, both have the capacity to suffer, and that suffering, Adams argued, is ignored in both pornography and meat production. PeTA uses this image to bring both absent referents to the viewer’s consciousness.
“Human Meat” and “Shackled” use a kind of visual dissonance to make a similar point about exploitation of women and animals. At first glance, the images are sexy: pretty naked women. After a moment’s contemplation, however, the viewer realizes what s/he is looking at: violence. The conflict between the sexual aspects of the image and the violent ones makes the viewer draw back and question his/her response to these images: is it really acceptable to think of violence as sexy? This contemplation then leads the viewer to consider the point of the poster: animal exploitation. Should I really be eating that? Do I think animals should be tied up and beaten? These images raise awareness, not only about animal liberation, but about objectification of women in our culture.
As for the final image, which shows a picture of a lynching of African-Americans alongside an image of a cow in a slaughterhouse, I think the offensiveness of the comparison between the killing of people and the killing of animals is greatly overstated. The image does not imply a comparison between African-Americans and animals in the areas of intellect, personhood, or civil rights. The text above the image reads “‘Animals and humans suffer and die alike….'”, a fact. Animals and humans have homologous peripheral nervous systems; their pain systems work the same way. Considering only the physical pain of the recipients, beating a person does not cause more pain than giving the same beating to a dog. Humans’ inherent evolutionary in-group prejudice causes them to feel more sympathetic to members of their own family, subculture, race, or species, but this does not mean that members of groups other than our own suffer less than us. Assuming the inverse is what made slavery acceptable; not assuming the inverse makes animal liberation an important moral issue.
—
@upset african american:
1) Prioritizing the survival of your species is not even slightly arguably a natural trait. (And even if it were, that wouldn’t make it moral.) Without resorting to evolutionary biology, I’ll just say that prioritizing the survival of your group is a natural trait–where a group in nature would be your family or, in the case of social insects and naked mole rats, your colony. This makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint because these individuals are closely related to you, so they share your DNA–therefore, their survival likely means the survival of your DNA. DNA that survives becomes more common, so these traits would be naturally selected for. However, one’s entire species does not share enough genetic material that their survival would be evolutionarily beneficial. I believe humans’ inherent speciesism is, like racism, a result of misplaced genetic in-group prejudice: we can’t kill people who aren’t our family anymore, so we have to extend our circle of equality out to the minimally socially acceptable level. However, this is not an evolutionary trait.
2) Fruit flies are probably not sentient; third-world workers are. This would be an argument for prioritizing the interests of the latter over the former. However, many charitable organizations (The Smile Train, which provides money for corrective surgery for children with cleft lips/palates born into poor families, would be an example), probably don’t alleviate as much suffering as spending an equal amount of time and effort on animal liberation would. Animal activists are not prioritizing animal interests over human interests, they simply see the torture and killing of billions of farmed animals as the area in which their activism can do the most good. (And, no one says you can’t do both! I know a few vegan human rights activists, and I am in awe of their activist powers.)
Lorraine: thanks so much for your extremely well-argued and thought-out comment. I can definitely see the messages that PETA is trying to send with many of its advertisements.
The topless pregnant woman in the cage is startling to say the least, but it does provoke thought about animal torture. For example, many animals are kept pregnant for most of their lives, while they are kept in inhumane conditions and forced to produce milk constantly. Putting any human into these conditions is sure to raise eyebrows and concern. However, given PETA’s history of exploiting female nudity, the demonstration may not get its point across so well to many people. Why must the woman be topless? I understand the thinking that her breasts are like the pig’s, but it is my hunch that many people were not attracted to the exhibit because of animal rights, but more because of public nudity. And a lot of PETA’s ad campaigns portray women in sexualized positions reminiscent of some pornography.
Female breasts compared with animals’ is an interesting discussion, but PETA has often made this comparison tastelessly. PETA’s whole “Milk Gone Wild” campaign basically makes the point that cows have breasts too by playing on gender stereotypes and enticing men to watch the commercial (which has very little to do with animal exploitation) by stating “Watch the commercial that was too hot for the Superbowl!” http://www.milkgonewild.com/
PETA’s recent recommendation to Ben and Jerry’s that they use human breast milk for their ice cream offended many people. This is one of PETA’s strategies that I actually wasn’t super duper offended by. The strategy is MEANT to make people think about how a woman being hooked up to a milking mechanism is inhumane, so why would we do the same thing to cows?
The “Tiger Woman” and “Wilde Tiere” ads may seek to humanize the animals, but there is a very problematic historical implication of portraying ethic minorities as animals. In the media, African Americans and other racial groups are often featured in ads that compare them to animals or portray them as “exotic,” and not for animal-liberation reasons. Even if PETA is in some way attempting to highlight the exploitation of women and ethnic minorities like you argue, that message is definitely completely lost on many people and the ads are seen as offensive.
The “cuts of meat” picture DOES provoke feminist thought. We shouldn’t do this to a woman, why do we do it to animals? But, oh wait, we DO do this to women. And the fact that PETA is doing exactly what they may be trying to draw attention to really isn’t helpful. Women are not cuts of meat. The woman in the ad is conveniently attractive with a pretty much perfect body as far as cultural ideals. Plus, I don’t really see the connection between sexualizing meat and the murder of animals. Women may be treated as objects, but animals are murdered, chopped up, and eaten. Attempting to draw the comparison may just overlook the very issue at the heart of the ad.
Again, with “Shackled,” there is an inappropriate parallel being drawn. Animals are abused. Women are abused. Yes, I see that. Men and children are also abused. Not only sexy naked women are abused. And look at her eyes. The ad is clearly sexualized. What an insult to the animal-liberation movement AND the feminist movement, comparing animal torture with a sexy naked, beaten woman. Why is sex added to this advertisement? Can’t PETA gain attention any other way?
The pornography argument you make is interesting. but I believe that this message is lost on many of the ads’ viewers. I know for a fact that there are many young teenage boys who masturbate to PETA’s advertisements. Plus, participating in pornography is also a choice that a woman can make. Although I do not agree with most porn’s depiction of women, there are women who choose to participate in porn, just as women are choosing to participate in PETA’s advertisements. Animals do not have any choice at all in the issue of their abuse and exploitation.
The “human meat” picture is also intriguing in its message. Yes, women are objectified in our culture, but I do not think this is the same issue as torturing, cutting up, and eating animals. Why is the woman in the demonstration attractive and sexualized? Why is she naked? Why is she silenced and constrained? Why isn’t the person in the plastic wrap a man?
The lynching ad is definitely offensive. PETA is just trying to draw a comparison where it is inappropriate. Both animals and humans suffer. The issues are both important, but these are two separate issues. Using pictures of the lynching of African Americans due to racial hatred is sure to get attention, but why is it that PETA tries to get attention through shock value and possibly offensive ads?
The KKK protest that PETA had was also highly offensive. Equating the American Kennel Club with the KKK draws an improper comparison with the systematic hatred, murder, and torture that African Americans have lived with. Plus, just in practical terms, nobody is going to want to take a pamphlet from somebody dressed as the KKK.
Here’s a novel idea, and here’s what made me a vegetarian. It was not any of these clever, offensive, or shocking advertisements that made me vegetarian. It was facts, plain and simple. If PETA wants people to stop eating meat, just show them what goes on in meat-packing industries! Show people what is done to animals, and how they are tortured, abused and exploited. Shocking? Yes. Effective? Quite.
When asked about the objectification of women in PETA’s ads, PETA president Ingrid Newkirk responded that “it’s rubbish because the organization is run by a woman, who is me…” She added “It’s a biological fact, isn’t it, that people are drawn to breasts and whathaveyou, it’s just a biological fact. Maybe if everyone walked around naked it wouldn’t be so appealing. But it does, for example, when Alicia Silverstone did a very beautiful, tasteful, ‘naked’ TV spot for us it went everywhere because everyone wanted to take a look. But when people came to the web site, after they saw her commercial, they then were confronted with the facts about why she’s a vegetarian.”
Okay, it is rather silly for Newkirk to claim that because she is a woman, the ads can’t be anti-feminist. But besides this, I know a lot of people who look at PETA’s ads because they are sexualized, and still do not become vegetarians. Her response that sex sells basically admits that women’s bodies are used by the organization to get attention. But, like Lorraine said, sex might sell Victoria’s Secret underpants and deodorant, but it does not sell a huge lifestyle change like vegetarianism or veganism.
oh, by the way, anyone want to give opinions on this?
http://www.petakillsanimals.com/index.cfm
I’m working on a coherent response for this, but petakillsanimals.com is a website owned by the Center for Consumer Freedom, a “grassroots” lobbying group whose major contributors are meat producing companies, such as Tyson and Philip Morris. Much of its information is inaccurate–I can look up specific things later 🙂
yeah i really wasn’t sure about that. i have heard conflicting arguments on both sides and I really have no idea what’s true and what is not.
I understand the objections to the commercial meat industry but what about the consumer of meat that is not part of all that and takes full responsibility for their place in the food chain. The hunter that provides meat for his family through deer, wild turkey, elk, moose, etc. (I am not talking about trophy hunting which I am strongly opposed to). The animal lives a normal life until is killed to be consumed by other animals (us).
I don’t by commercial meat but I do eat the free range cattle from my friends farm. Isn’t being organic and conscious of the social footprint your meat eating has more appropriate for omnivores than becoming vegan?
I wouldn’t say it’s “more appropriate,” but I do think that being organic and conscious is in its own way admirable, as is veganism, vegetarianism, etc. It can’t be expected for everyone to make the major life change that is required to become vegetarian or vegan, but treating animals relatively humanely and buying organic is certainly one approach that people take. Meat consumption is a tricky issue, and people choose to navigate their own responses in different ways. Every little bit counts, so I think it is off-putting when vegetarians and vegans take an all-or-nothing approach in the discourse. Baby steps. I’m sure a lot of vegetarians or vegans would love to see a fully vegetarian society, but it really isn’t practical or realistic at this point, as vegetarianism is a really difficult choice for many people to make (and let’s face it, meat is tasty.)
It’s not sexist because Men are in some of the photos too! Of all the bad things & you rant about PeTA! They are PROTECTING ANIMALS! get over it
“For example, many animals are kept pregnant for most of their lives, while they are kept in inhumane conditions and forced to produce milk constantly. ”
How about a few hundred abortion clinics for animals?
LOL Great Post!
@Curious:
As a utilitarian vegan, I have less of a problem with hunting than with purchasing conventionally raised meat. However, the reason for this is not because hunting is “more natural”, and it has nothing to do with the “food chain”: Hunted animals typically lead happier lives than animals raised on conventional farms. Therefore, the amount of harm someone does by eating only wild animals is infinitesimal compared to the amount of harm their money would do if they bought conventionally raised meat.
I don’t see the relevance of the “food chain” or the fact that humans are naturally omnivorous to the question of whether we, now, should eat meat. It is now widely recognized that humans can be healthy on a diet containing no animal products, provided they eat a variety of foods and ensure that they consume adequate amounts of vitamin B12 through supplements or fortified foods. Since humans don’t need to eat meat, eggs, or dairy products, I don’t think the fact that our ancestors ate these things means that we should also eat them. After all, our ancestors were probably also racist and sexist, and we don’t argue that we should retain these beliefs because in-group privilege is “natural”.
In some cases and for some species, the use of animal products from animals who lived happy lives is probably not immoral. However, I don’t think there’s a sustainable way for humans to do this and continue to eat anything like the amount of meat we do now. There certainly aren’t enough wild animals for us to do this, and the amount of land required to raise truly free-range animals is extremely large compared to the amount of land required to raise animals conventionally. Truly free-range meat is also currently hard to find and extremely expensive.
@feminist1:
Some vegans believe that meat eating is immoral because animals have intrinsic rights that are violated when humans use them for food. For this reason, these people do not see a moral distinction between people who eat a little meat or a lot of meat, or ovo-lacto-vegetarians and meat-eaters, etc. (I don’t find their arguments convincing, and I agree with you.)
@Lorraine- You’ve pretty much summed up the vast majority of what I wanted to say. Kudos.
There are a couple of things I want to say.
“Displaying women and African Americans…” Uh, if they’re taking photos of people, they shouldn’t really care about race. After all, the point here is to take photos of attractive women, and, well- I’d say a healthy woman of any race is pretty likely to be attractive. So the fact that you’re actually adding in that they’re displaying African Americans as “cuts of meat, animals, or sexy and battered” suggests that that’s additionally offensive.
And no, sorry, but it’s not. If the photos were primarily or purely of black women, then yes, it would be, as it would suggest that they were making a point out of race- but it seems to me to just be having the occasional photo of a racial minority. And since people of that race DO live in America, the country PETA comes from, it makes sense.
“Juxtaposing the lynching of African Americans and the slaughter of animals can be interpreted as insensitive and dehumanizing.” I’ll be entirely, 100% honest- when I first saw that picture, I had no idea it was depicting people of a particular race. I saw a horrific picture of a brutal hanging. Now I look at it, I can definately tell.
The point here- as Lorraine has said- isn’t to be dehumanising. I believe the point is to compare the animal to the human in order to make the animal seem like more than the general public considers it- alive, aware, intelligent and feeling. Perhaps their methods are… unusual, but that brings me onto my next point-
The point- to me- is to grab your attention by any means possible. And it’s definately doing that. Now, not only has the original blog writer noticed PETA, but it’s sparked off a huge chain reaction.
With thousands of adverts being thrust into our face, advertisers must come up with new ways to get our attention. It just seems to me that PETA is the least fearless.
Naked (or close to) females will grab attention. And not just men’s attention, either- women are looking too. The thing is, women tend to be less shy of looking at a nude member of their own gender- putting a mostly-naked man into the shot instantly shuts off most, if not all, people not attracted to men. So putting women in the shot isn’t just about the message- it’s also pretty smart, and going to get the maximum amount of attention.
They’re pandering to one sociological norm in their fight to change another, I’ll agree. The other reason not to put men into their posters is that, well- a man who allows himself to become beaten and abused is seen as weak, whereas a woman who is beaten and abused should be protected and helped.
And this leads us down the fun road of “is this right?”, a discussion of chivalry vs. femanism, and men protecting women- from other men. Which is probably a discussion for elsewhere, since, you know- the point of this discussion is PETA.
How about this – PETA is supposed to be looking after animal rights. Isn’t one of the fundamental rights that an animal should have the right to live? I am a South African, and I want to see kudu, hartebeest, eland, and the like on the veld for a long time to come. I’d like to see the veld (wild vegetation) remain on the land. If we eat these animals, we create demand for their being on the land. The alternative is getting our protein from plants – which means replacing the natural vegetation with high-protein crops. It’s a similar situation to the hype surrounding biofuels.
MEAT is INEFFICIENT as a source of ENERGY. PLANTS (generally) are INEFFICIENT as a source of PROTEIN. There appears to be confusion on both sides of the debate. We don’t need to eat much meat to get the protein we need. Our modern diet is in general far too meat-heavy. But a strictly vegetarian diet is NOT environmentally friendly. Do the research people, look at our ecology, weigh up the numbers, factor in the hidden costs. And please look at the information regarding the carbon impact of biofuels. You might start realising how much nonsense some of the official stories are.
Here’s another argument against PETA – one that ties in directly to these ads. Traditional cultures around the world have been hunting cultures, or herding cultures. Animals were used, yes, but used with RESPECT. The modern “you can’t respect something you kill” is a product of urbanites completely out of touch with the reality of the natural world, of nature red in tooth and claw. These people are far too sensitive, and far too UNAWARE of what an animal’s life should be. Life in the wild is free, is a lot less cruel than a factory farm or feedlot, but it is still a hard, brutal life. The easy, comfortable life that city folk have is an anomaly in the broader scheme of things.
That does NOT mean that I am pro the factory farms. They are disgusting, a betrayal of our relationship with the natural world. But that is not what I am arguing for – I bought my meat supply for the next two months yesterday, and it is ALL game, which had a good life in the wild and died a quick death by bullet. Ethical meat.
As we’re dealing with gender issues – the last time that humanity as a whole saw gender equality was before the Neolithic Revolution (the transition to agriculture). Women in hunter-gatherer societies around the world have had a lot more freedom and equality than their sisters in agricultural societies. PETA should think about that, as should feminists. The patriarchy and civilisation (and warfare, massive environmental damage etc.) are all products of the agricultural/Neolithic revolution. Maybe we can create an equal. agricultural, industrial, civilised society – but history is against us.
To sum up: PETA is as much a product of civilisation as the engines of social and environmental destruction it supposedly combats. It’s a feelgood, armchair, low-commitment solution. Go for it, if that’s all you can handle. But if you really want to make a difference – help dismantle civilisation. It’s our only long-term hope…
@David: While I agree with you that, as far as ecology is concerned, dismantling civilization would be a positive thing, I think it’s far from clear it would be a net good thing. Dismantling civilization would have many negative consequences too. For example, many people with chronic diseases (eg, Type 1 diabetes), would die extremely painful deaths without modern medicine. A better ideal would be for everyone to choose not to have children, allowing the human species to gradually die out.
I don’t plan to have children for various reasons, but I don’t actually think this could ever happen. While it’s interesting to think about the role people would have on an ideal planet, we do more actual good if we stick to activism that’s realistic.
[…] scroll down (here) to see the ‘HANGING’ one – that makes me […]
Vegetarians are losers! Animals were put on Earth to be eaten, if they weren’t made to be eaten don’t you think that God wouldn’t have made them so darn tasty.
Nate… evidently, God made animals tasty, and made opium pretty fun, too… do you suggest we all start smoking opium and shooting up heroin?
(also, after about 2 decades of no meat consumption, I have to say that it must definitely be an aquired taste… because on the few occaisions i have been fooled, it was far from ‘tasty’ in my opinion – on the way down or the way up.)
[…] promote vegetarianism (along with PETA’s other offenses which we have blogged about here and here and here and here and here). Well, here’s another example of a similar […]
P.E.T.A.
People Eating Tasty Animals
[…] The point is always to get attention, but some ways of getting attention are unacceptable (see PETA ads for further examples). Terming something “politically correct” is an easy way of dismissing an issue without […]
What no one has addressed in this thread, still is the fact that all the women in the ads are white, except for the Tiger ad which is horribly racist, and characterizes an African America woman, as a very sexualized tiger in a cage. Also, it uses adjectives that are racist and associated with animals such as “wild.” Traditionally as a form of offensive racism, African Americans have been characterized as animals, wild and uncontrollable. Also the fact that the woman is restrained harkens back to slavery and shackles. PETA should be ashamed, as should all PETA supporters. How about that awful commercial during the superbowl last year? Suggesting powerfully that women masturbated with vegetables? Check it out on youtube. Another problem I have is that the women are always shown in compromising positions in which they appear weak and or vulnerable. Also, why doesn’t PETA ever use men? Not that I think objectifying either sex is alright, but isn’t it strange that they only choose women? Men are “sexy” too? Hidden Agenda? I think so!
Lets keep it simple…lynching is wrong…dehumanizing any human is wrong…equating woman to a piece of meat is wrong…eating meat is wrong!! Therefore in all these adds we are saying that one wrong is equal to another. If you think it is wrong to do these things then you should not eat meat…plain and simple!!!
to all peta members and anti hunters, the fact is that humans are above animals on the food chain, if they had the chance to eat us they would. plus beleive it not, hunters not peta does the most for animals and the environment.
Not going to argue any point. I eat meat, I like meat and I will always eat meat. If I can’t get it at the store, then I am more than able and willing to kill it and process it myself and have done so on many occasions.
If you want to be Vegan or Vegetarian, more power to you and have fun with that. BUT stay out of my way and what I eat/wear or you won’t have enough strength from veggies to handle what I bring your way. I’m not some little old rich woman you can run up to and spray paint a coat. With me that would be a LENGTHY hospital stay – if lucky.
Only favorable thing I see is, that if the world were to go into chaos tomorrow and all you soy burger processing plants shut down, none of you would EVER be able to survive.
Speaking of soy. I live in an area that is a major producer of soybeans. If you had ANY idea of what you were eating with them, you’d gladly eat meat. However, I’m sure that the crap they spray all over them that makes all of us sick as crap, is doing worse in your gut right now. Bon apetite’
[…] except for Peta, non-profits have traditionally avoided, you know, exploiting people. 350.org is now apparently […]
While I get the point and applaud the effort, the hanging picture I have a problem with…since it’s exploiting the deaths of those human victims. I don’t know the circumstances in which they were hanged, but I’d suspect that if I were a family member of one of those victims, I wouldn’t appreciate my loved one’s hanging body being used in an anti-meat demonstration.
I’m all with PETA to stop the whole torture and abuse thing.(though it is highly unlikely that a human culture would just up and stop any of their traditions) However, humans have relied on other animals for sustenance for as long as the species has known how. They will not stop; other animals also rely on others for sustenance.(even cultivate other animals) The animals that we use for sustenance cannot be compared to us. I find that saying a woman is like a cow is offensive. I just wonder if these horrid people who came up with these ad ideas ever stopped to think that cows like to be pampered to? Ever thought that maybe cows like the idea of being protected from any natural predators all the time? Oh I’m sure they hate the relief of being milked while the same person who relieves them is taking care of their children. All animals have one thing in common: they live TO LIVE! You CANNOT compare the hateful hangings of my ancestors and their kin to that of how cows are killed and strapped up. They are not hung by the neck to strangle to death slowly while many people watch in a twisted satisfaction of unparalleled hate.