On PeTA and Friends of Animals, Part Deux

I’ve been very busy with the early arrival of a new extended family member, Evan Levi (6lb. 3 oz., 19.5" of perfect gorgeousness), so I haven’t had much time to participate on my own blog. The hospital has wireless Internet (who knew?), but moderating comments and sparing you the rants of trolls was about all I had time for.

Regarding the discussion about PeTA and Friends of Animals demonstrations in Victoria, I had asked for reactions from people who were there, and thanks to Lee Hall for sending me the link to a reprint of the FoA Facebook page that addressed the demonstration, complete with the thoughts of both observers and participants.

I enjoyed reading your comments for the past 48 hours, and here are some of my thoughts (in order of the comments):

• Dustin: Obviously I wasn’t there, but the idea of a counter protest being counter productive isn’t one I agree with. I wasn’t aware that, as you say, "Any and every time Friends of Animals takes a stand against animal exploiting organizations that declare themselves to be pro-animal we get accused of this." About being ashamed of activists who support PeTA, since I was one of those activists since the 1980s, I can say that until a couple of years ago, I simply wasn’t thinking about how much the organization has changed, plus though I disagreed with their sexist campaigns, my thinking at the time was that no organization is perfect, and I was willing to take their choice of campaigns as a flaw I could live with. Of course, once I took more responsibility for my activism and more closely examined where my money was going, I altered my behavior. But I’m the minority, as we know. I’m not sure PeTA members are saying to themselves: PeTA promotes companies that slaughter animals and "turns women into another piece of meat," as you say. I don’t think they say: PeTA does that, and that’s okay with me. And that’s why protests like this by Friends of Animals are crucial. They’re the wake-up call that PeTA members need, and they’re unambiguous and easily grasped because they’re right next to PeTA’s message, deconstructing it on the spot.
• Nick: I guess my response to Dustin is my version of your comment.

• Joseph: I too have heard reasoning similar to Nicole Matthews’,
  and of course also the emphasis that they are choosing to exploit
  themselves (and don’t see it as such) because it’s for a good cause.
  It’s most disconcerting to hear women promoting the exploitation,
  objectification and/or commodification of other women.
• Roger: I have seen what you see–that "PeTA IS animal rights in the
  USA." And I think because of that, I see what Dustin sees, which is
  that PeTA is laughable, therefore animal rights is laughable. And therein lies the problem.
• Tracy: To me, your reaction demonstrates that the FoA protest
  accomplished what it set out to (I assume) in that the protest makes it
  startlingly obvious that PeTA is advertising for KFC. What I don’t
  understand is your preference for PeTA over FoA, as if they’re very
  similar and in the same category. If you’re reading, would you help me
  understand? It seems to me that though PeTA may say that they don’t
  think animals are ours to use, much of what they do isn’t aligned with
  that idea (such as advertising for KFC). The same cannot be said of FoA
  (unless I’m missing something). So if you don’t think animals are ours
  to use (and I don’t know if that’s what you think), FoA would seem to
  be a better fit.
• Nillo: Welcome! And I agree, "PeTA has been destroying the idea of
  Animal Rights." They have succeeded in turning animal rights into just
  another version of animal welfare, and most of their members probably
  haven’t even noticed.
• Nathan: I don’t disagree, but the thing I’ll never forget and never
  thought I’d read in my lifetime, is that you were up at 2am watching
  EXTRA.  🙂
• Ardeth: I don’t think it’s "a bad thing to have animal rights
  groups publicly at odds" either. (With that said, I don’t consider PeTA
  to be an animal rights group.) If FoA weren’t there encouraging people
  to examine the PeTA message, passersby and PeTA supporters would assume
  PeTA’s way is the way that is most effective and makes the most sense.
  And I agree with the Holocaust analogy, too.
• Serafina: You say, "PeTA is using the exploitation of woman
  (turning us into sex objects – and associating us with food to be
  consumed) to further a corporate agenda not the good of living beings,"
  and I agree!
• Lyda: I like the emphasis on contextualizing what you’re doing when
  you say: "So if you participate in a protest that is degrading to
  women, what you mean or how you feel about it is only half the
  equation. You must also think how it makes other women feel. You must
  also ask if men seeing it feel reinforced in sexist views or behavior
  because of it."
• Dan: I’ve already backed off of my use of abolition, but mostly
  because I don’t appear to "qualify" for some reason, and I don’t want
  to give myself a headache.
• bunny: I think that if the protest points out that PeTA is promoting an animal exploiter, and also sending a positive message (Lettuce Respect Women and Animals), it’s a great idea. PeTA is an enormous problem because a true animal rights movement can never develop (and there’s little hope for abolition) as long as PeTA is the largest "animal rights" group in the world. Taking them to task is necessary.

Thanks, and I welcome further discussion. Have a wonderful day!