Skip to content

We Sell Body Parts

January 21, 2010

She is judged by her parts, not her whole

Let me say what I feel is People for the Ethical Treatment of Animal’s (PETA) greatest contribution to the animal rights movement: Meet Your Meat. I can’t tell you how many people I’ve heard tell me that they went vegetarian or vegan because of this video.

No matter how hard I try, though, it is virtually impossible for me to get past how PETA perpetuates the objectification of women.

Their most recent endeavor can be seen at their website – their annual State of the Union Undress. How catchy! In the video, a woman removes her clothing while dictating all the amazing work PETA has done in the previous year. She does this until she is completely nude. This year, PETA requested the woman be “African American or mixed race”…you know, to look like the President and stuff.

I have not watched the video, so I can’t say with certainty if I would remember anything the woman said or the amazing feats PETA performed last year. The whole stripping off your clothes bit is perhaps a smidgen distracting to most.

PETA is known for this stuff, I know. But it’s frustrating, nonetheless. PETA uses the bodies of women to sell a product. Sex sells. There is nothing wrong with loving your body. There is nothing immoral about nudity. Sex can make for a wonderful, powerful connection between people. So I’m not coming from an angle of “prudishness” (which is what PETA often accuses its naysayers of being, weird). I’m not coming from a perspective of denying women (or anyone) the right to dress how they want.

I’m coming from the perspective that if you want to advocate liberation for nonhuman animals, perhaps you should avoid exploiting human females. That many of these women are conned into their own self-exploitation is heart-breaking and sad.

For me, I think of the billions of farmed animals in the United States alone. On dairy farms, nine million cows will be artificially inseminated this year. They are, in essence, raped – denied the right to mate with a bull of their choice. They are denied motherhood, their babies stripped from them the day of birth. Their sole worth is in their bodies’ excretions, their milk. On egg farms, 400 million hens languish in cages or crammed into sheds. Their value is in their eggs, leeching calcium and life from them every day. On chicken farms, 9.3 billion birds – male and female – will be raised and slaughtered this year. Their value is in their body parts, their legs, thighs, and backs. They are sold by the pound. Producers will look at the 33 million cattle being fattened for slaughter and compartmentalize them into choice cuts, select body parts.

The list of horrifying things we do to nonhuman animals is long. How can we possibly change behavior, encourage compassion, suggest veganism when organizations within this movement perpetuate the notion that female humans are body parts? They are breasts and butts and thighs and smooth stomachs. They are, according to PETA, not fat or male or transgender or pimpled or seemingly flawed. They are young, nubile, firm, appealing based on nothing more than their flesh. Why do they care about nonhumans? Why do they want to help farmed animals or fur-bearing animals? What are their interests, their loves, desires, hopes and aspirations? What are their failures, mistakes?

We don’t ever know.

I want people to care about cattle and goats because they are socially fascinating, emotionally driven creatures. I want people to care about foxes and mink because they can suffer. I want people to care about turkeys and chickens because they sing songs, trill and cluck out a language. I want people to care about nonhuman animals because they are unique individuals with personalities, sentience, emotions, intelligence. I don’t feel people can care about the suffering and exploitation of nonhuman animals when an “animal rights” organization objectifies and exploits the bodies of human females.

Your thoughts?

Photo by: EssG

24 Comments leave one →
  1. Eric M permalink
    January 21, 2010 4:27 pm

    I have been thinking about this issue for a bit now. When I see these ads, I don’t feel they’re sexist and have met women who agree. Being a man seems to reduce my cred though (which of course is sexist of others to do :-). But, in fact, as crazy as this may sound, I realized I think its sexist to call such ads sexist. So i’d like to ask. What is it that makes a woman using sexiness to sell something worse than her using her intellect or her fame to sell something? What exactly is sexist about these ads? They may be manipulative, and a sexy woman may have nothing to do with toothpaste or animal rights, and so the ads may be wrong for other reasons, but there is nothing in the ad that is saying “women aren’t intelligent” or “women are only good for their sexiness” or “women are inferior” which is what sexism says. The viewer of the ad may believe these things and therefore think them as they see the ad, but those messages are not in the ad itself.

    Saying a woman that uses her sexuality in an ad is exploiting herself but one using say her intellect is not, is a sexist thing to say. You are saying there is something wrong with female sexuality even if you are saying its only wrong in the context of an ad. What exactly makes it different than other aspects of a woman? When we call a peta ad, or any ad sexist that is simply using the female form to sell something, we are actually perpetuating sexism ourselves. All women can be respected for who they are and what they look like regardless of whether they are using their sexuality or not. If you have a problem with someone using *any* aspect of themselves to sell a product, then fine, that is understandable, but when you single out a woman’s sexuality as being wrong in an ad but everything else is ok, you become sexist yourself. You perpetuate the idea that women need to hide their sexiness or that its wrong in itself. You perpetuate the idea that their sexuality is a negative aspect of themselves. You perpetuate the negative idea that woman who do use their sexiness in ads are “exploiting themselves” and are acting foolishly and getting “conned”.

    You might say, “well yes, but so many ads just show sexy woman and therefore people will see it and think ‘see, girls are only good for their sexiness, not for their intellect'”. Yes, they may or may not think that, but its not the ads that make them think it. They had this belief before they saw the ad. And it may be true that the ad is not specifically helping to combat those who are already sexist, but unless its an ad for a women’s rights group, this was not its purpose. In any case, the ad itself is still not sexist by not combatting sexism. People are sexist, the ads here are not.

    So yes, maybe the ads are manipulative, silly, ineffective, dishonest, have nothing to do with animal rights or just plain dumb… But they’re not sexist.

    Those are my thoughts, though I am very open to further insights and discussion.

  2. Marji permalink
    January 21, 2010 4:48 pm

    Hi Eric, thanks for a challenging opinion – it’s a good thing, methinks!

    While I do not actually use the term sexist in my post, I think an argument can be made that PETA is a sexist organization. They perpetuate a stereotype about what women are good for – their bodies. And more than that, their bodies must not just be female, they must be nubile, robust, young, virile, firm, supple. They are appealing to the desires/wants/eyes of men. Reducing women to their constituent body parts – as if that is all they are worthy of – is sexist.

    But my point is not necessarily that PETA promotes sexism. My belief is that they objectify and exploit women for their bodies. And to do that while trying to reduce the exploitation and objectification of nonhuman animals for their bodies is disingenuous, at best.

    Perhaps others who agree with my sentiments can convey what I’m trying to say better. :)

    I would add, though, that I think it’s dangerous to label these types of ads as merely “silly” – they’re more than that, I think, and to reduce them to simply being “ineffective” and “silly” is to reduce the issue of how PETA uses women and the ramifications for both the human and animal rights movements.

  3. Eric M permalink
    January 21, 2010 5:56 pm

    We are certainly in agreement that women are much more than their body parts and that to reduce them to their body parts and objectify them is sexist. But the attempted point of my post is that the ads are not actually doing this. Its only the sexist people looking at the ads that are doing this. Seeing a sexy woman may bring the sexism out in sexist people, but that doesn’t make the ads the cause of it. Why does showing a young nubile sexy woman have to mean that woman are only good for their bodies? It actually doesn’t say that at all! Unless you’re already sexist.

    If there is nothing wrong with pictures of women looking sexy and there is nothing wrong with people putting themselves in advertisements…. specifically then, what’s wrong when they come together? I think *anyone* in an advertisement is exploiting themselves and being exploited. But for some reason we’re ok with them exploiting other aspects of themselves, but not their sexuality. If a really smart female rocket scientist, known for her intelligence but considered by a company to be subjectively unattractive allows her image to be used to sell toothpaste… well how is she not exploiting herself but a women using her sexuality is? And what if the world was inundated with such intelligent woman type ads and I was a woman who society saw as unintelligent. Could I say “hey! take all those smart educated girl ads off the air, you Crest people are making it seem like you have to have gone to college and gotten a PhD in order to be a successful respected woman!” What of all those women who don’t do as well in school or don’t have the finances or the desire to continue their education? Would these ads not also destroy self-esteem of many women? You see the problem is not in the ad, its in the viewer of the ad. If we want to help women be valued and respected the place to start is in ourselves. To say that there is something wrong with female sexuality in ads is to devalue and disrespect women.

    Its a tricky thing. I can see how a girl who gets disrespected by a sexist man might say, “hey! i’m more than a set of boobs you know! I have a personality and intelligence and thoughts and feelings…” And after so many encounters begins to shun and deny this vital aspect of herself if only in a well-intentioned effort to show sexist people that women *are* more than their sexuality. But don’t let the sexist person make you deny a part of yourself. You can be against sexism and still for sexuality. They don’t have to be mutually exclusive.

    Still, I can see how such ads are not *combating* sexism, and that is unfortunate. But the fact they are not combating sexism doesn’t make the ads sexist.

  4. Debrah permalink
    January 21, 2010 7:40 pm

    I’m a 54 year old heterosexual woman, happily married to the same man for 35 years, and I think the PETA ads in question are ok. I think the young ladies are lovely to look at and as far as I know, they aren’t being forced to do what they’re doing. Why is it ok for them to do provocative love scenes in movies where they are getting paid big bucks and they are naked, and people don’t get all worked up,but it isn’t ok for them to do these ads for a cause that they believe in and the idea is to catch the attention of the public? The fault is not in them or in PETA,but in those who look at them with lascivious and vile thoughts and see them only as sex objects.

    • Marji permalink
      January 21, 2010 8:03 pm

      “The fault is not in them or in PETA,but in those who look at them with lascivious and vile thoughts and see them only as sex objects.”

      Who do you think is PETA’s target audience? Is it you? Or do you think they are targeting, say, a subset of the population that views women as objects and enjoys looking at their body parts? Nice breasts. Nice ass. Nice legs.

      My gut reaction is the latter. And my gut reaction is that that subset of the population isn’t LISTENING to her words but is LOOKING at her body. I don’t know, I guess I find it just as creepy as butchering a pig and hearing people speak in similar terms – nice butt (shoulder), nice flank, nice muscling and marbling….well, he’s a lovely piece of carcass to look at!

      Again, I have nothing against nudity. The human body is amazing and wondrous and I love it very much! But PETA does not present a reality-based depiction of human beings or their bodies. They use shock tactics that are not effective in changing behavior, so far as anyone can tell. And yes, the play upon the stereotype of beauty and sex and sell it. What *I* find difficult to swallow is that they exploit these ideas of beauty and sex (and imo, women themselves) trying to get people to stop exploiting nonhuman animals. It seems contradictory to me.

    • Marji permalink
      January 21, 2010 8:06 pm

      I would like to add that I *agree* it is not the fault of the women that our society is still rather sexist and still objectifies women. I agree that the only ones at fault for viewing a nude woman as a collection of body parts is the viewer him/herself, as well as the culture that perpetuates that type of thinking.

      BUT! I don’t like that PETA plays along and uses that objectification to their advantage*, NOT when they are advocating for animal rights (including, I hope, human rights as well).

      *And I’m not sure it’s a) to their advantage in terms of success or b) advantageous to the animal rights movement as a whole.

    • January 21, 2010 8:12 pm

      Why is it ok for them to do provocative love scenes in movies where they are getting paid big bucks and they are naked, and people don’t get all worked up,but it isn’t ok for them to do these ads for a cause that they believe in and the idea is to catch the attention of the public?

      I really don’t have time to jump into the conversation right how, however, I would like to point out that many feminists, vegan and non-, who object to PETA’s portrayal of women also find fault with pop culture’s treatment of women as a whole. Visit any random feminist blog and I guarantee you’ll find lots of discussion about tv, movies, music, advertising, literature, etc.

      Or come by my house on movie night and see how often I pause the film to rant about unnecessary/gender-biased nudity, the under-representation of women characters, and the like. The husband much prefers going to the drive-in, where I can’t get my hands on a remote control. (!)

      • January 22, 2010 7:59 am

        Kelly–

        “Or come by my house on movie night and see how often I pause the film to rant about unnecessary/gender-biased nudity, the under-representation of women characters, and the like.”

        !!! My house, too! We do a lot of pausing for discussion (monologue?) when animals appear in a scene, too.

      • January 22, 2010 10:25 am

        Monologue, definitely a monologue at my house. At least I’m not the only one!

  5. January 21, 2010 8:00 pm

    PETA might consider itself an “animal rights” organization but looking only at its current *actions*, it better qualifies as an “animal welfare” organization. For example, PETA happily participates in Farm Forward, which is firmly aligned with the meat, egg, and dairy industries. In 2005 PETA was one of several major organizations behind the establishment of the Animal Compassion Foundation (now known as the Global Animal Partnership). PETA’s spectacle activism has often been troubling, especially when that spectacle exploits someone. To me, it seems like PETA believes any means justifies the end. Ironic that PETA believes it can use exploitation to end exploitation–just as many in the military believe peace will be achieved only through war.

    Perhaps the days of PETA donating over $80,000 (that no one else would) to the legal fund of an activist facing an unjust federal penitentiary sentence are long gone. Though I’m no fan of PETA, I think it’s too easy to make that group into a punching bag. Other animal welfare groups are no less besieged by similar compromises in their own dubious methods of animal advocacy. I wish there were more groups like Catskill Animal Sanctuary (run by Kathy Stevens), Tribe of Heart, and Peaceful Prairie Sanctuary–groups that staunchly advocate only for the animals and endorse vegan living rather than “happy meat.”

    Sure “Meet Your Meat” has been effective in convincing some people to adopt vegan living. However, today films such as “The Witness” (about a construction worker’s courage to change his entire life and become an activist for the animals) and “Peaceable Kingdom: The Journey Home” offer a much deeper exploration into the relationship between nonhuman animals and humans. Whereas “Meet Your Meat” shocks the viewer in hopes of triggering change–a tactic that isn’t always successful because violence is so heavily prevalent and accepted in our culture–the other two films engage us in our deepest compassion and critical thinking. I find such films have a lasting impression and a much more profound affect on my daily actions.

  6. Aliya permalink
    January 21, 2010 11:05 pm

    Agreed. For starters, hopefully this helps demonstrate why you are right on to point out PETA’s constant exploitation of women. Kind of NSFW.

    You can make the argument that these women made the conscious decision to use their bodies in the service of promoting veganism/vegetarianism/not wearing fur, blah blah blah and that may be true on some level. I am not one to disrespect or get in the way of someone’s bodily autonomy and integrity, but my question (which Marji touched on quite well) is who’s interests are being represented by this kind of advertising? When women’s bodies are put on display, what audience is the advertisement/whatever medium of communication being utilized trying to appeal to? And where do the interests and the rights of the animals fit in this equation?

    I completely disagree with the notion that is it sexist to call women’s bodies and sexuality being put on display as sexist. Saying exploiting women’s sexuality and bodies in order to further an agenda (even an agenda that is agreeable and rife with good intentions, i.e. veganism and anti-fur agendas) is not the same as decrying women’s sexuality and bodies. If we’re following that logic, then we would also say that someone who calls the use and display of women’s sexuality and bodies in Girls Gone Wild sexist is also being sexist and saying there is something wrong with women openly (and freely, purportedly at least) displaying their sexuality and bodies.

    But as much as I disagree with some commenters, I’m glad for a diversity of opinions so that we don’t all fall pray to mindlessly agreeing with one another’s arguments but not actually having any substance to back our arguments.

  7. January 22, 2010 12:28 am

    In response to Eric M and Debrah.

    What would both of you’re opinions be of the woman strippng down to nothing and looking all sexy…in an ad if the ad was for a human rights group making claims regarding all the great accomplishments they had made so far in helping the earthquake victims in Haiti?
    What would you both think if naked women were laying around all sexy and hot if it was an ad for stopping sexual violence against women in the Congo or children in Darfur?
    Would either of you have a problem with really sexy beautiful hot looking women declaring that they would rather go nude then participate in honor killings?
    How successful would Rosa Parks protest have been if she wore a bikini on the street corner rather than sit in the front of the bus fully clothed?
    If you object to any of the hot sexy campaigns above you may realize how speciesist you might be and how speciesist these PETA actually ads make our culture.
    The problem here with what PETA consistently accomplishes is two fold. They trivialize the important, urgent and horrible issue of violence and oppression against innocent non human animals and turn the issue into a joke with the animal victims being the actual punchline.
    The other problem here is that we still live in a densely male supremacist culture and world. All of the acts of violent cruelty in this world in which we sit around and blame humans for….are caused by human men.
    Women are not out clubbing seals, torturing other women and children and flying airplanes into buildings in order to receive their 72 virgins. It is men and men alone…committing these acts. This is such the reality of our world that I don’t wish to hear about the one female matador living in northern Spain….OK?
    Eric M you claim the ads are only sexist because the individuals looking at them are sexist…
    YES! YOU are correct..And PETA is sadly playing into this.
    When men look at another’s body and want that body to belong to him…there’s a definite problem of objectification happening and PETA should not be using this tactic in an animal rights ad or any campaign…this is what..the point of Marji’s post is. And you have missed it.
    The problem is that we fail as a culture to view sexual objectification as an issue of injustice and an issue with ethical meanings.
    Male supremacy or what is sometimes called patriarchy is alive and well and people like you and myself Eric born as men hold power over those that are not men. This is the problem.
    It is difficult for me to hear your arguments claiming the ads are not sexist.
    The sexism in our culture works in these two reinforcing ways. And it works just like racism homophobia and speciesism.
    1.Mens constant habit of sexually objectifying women serves to reinforce male supremacy.
    2.The culture of male supremacy urges men to adapt by adopting the habit of sexually objectifying and of accepting sexism as OK or as Eric’s case non existent.
    The ethical issues in any sexual relating is complex and varied… however it is an insult to women and an an injustice to non humans to show there desperate plight in a sexy way.
    What PETA does is reinforce the animal rights issue as silly, unimportant, fun, sexy, trivial.
    They reinforce women’s bodies as objects to be used for whatever sells…
    We cannot reflect on what we are doing as a culture and its consequences if we are objectifying anyone!
    This is the problem with what is happening with these campaigns.
    Not only do we stay blind to the sexist aspects of this exploitation and objectification..we all stay trapped in your own speciesist cages as well.

    GREAT POST!

    • Eric M permalink
      January 22, 2010 1:38 am

      Great discussion here and a complex subject. In any case thanks for a great post Marji.

  8. Debrah permalink
    January 22, 2010 8:30 am

    “Women are not out clubbing seals, torturing other women and children and flying airplanes into buildings in order to receive their 72 virgins. It is men and men alone…committing these acts. This is such the reality of our world that I don’t wish to hear about the one female matador living in northern Spain….OK?”

    I was in Newfoundland a few months ago as a tourist. We stopped in at a trendy T-shirt store and one of the shirts being offered for sale was a little infants undershirt, the kind that snap in the front and there emblazoned across the front of this was the statement “I club baby seals”. Mothers are the ones who buy baby undershirts and if this store carried a stock of these shirts, then I question your remarks about women not clubbing baby seals. Those sealers are married to women who bear their children and survive with the aid of funds derived from that slaughter. Women prostitute themselves for that violence of animal abuse just as men do. So lets not get all high and mighty because we are women.

    I will grant you that it is still largely a patriarchal world and women and children pay the price. But until you all start marching on Hollywood to end the sexploitation that you are moaning about in movies, you are as credible as those who would have us only concentrate on animal welfare. The world is what it is and bashing PETA because they use a pretty girl in an ad does little to help the cause of ending the bloodshed. It only serves to fragment what is already an overwhelming battle.

    You people are throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I’m sure that you are all aware of the US Global Exotics raid and I believe that PETA was instrumental in obtaining the evidence that has led to the confiscation of those 20 to 27,000 animals. Were you there in that building for seven months, filming and documenting? Did you spend seven months, with your heart being torn out of your soul each and every moment? Do you organize the petitions and legal efforts against fashion designers and corporations that have made inroads on the brutality that animals are faced with each day? The sad thing is that I seldom hear of any of you who hate the ad tactics joining PETA and making efforts to become management and change things. Are any of you marching on Washington, joining the army of lobbyiests for Big Ag and Giant Pharma. and working to make the changes we all would love to see at the highest level?

    The kind of ads you are all complaining about work on one premise: Get the name PETA out there as many times as possible. As that name has become synonymous with Animal Rights, every man, woman and child for at least an instant is caused to have that phrase run through their mind and maybe, just maybe, 1 out of a 1000 or 1 out of 10,000 might just consider investigating a little further, what would cause people (women) to do such an outrageous thing. And maybe if the animals are having a lucky moment in time, one of those people who investigates will be so moved by their suffering that they will make a change.

    • January 22, 2010 10:23 am

      So my only choices are to quit my day job, spend a week marching on Hollywood, and then join up with PETA management — or STFU? Gotcha.

      And PETA’s occasional good deeds doesn’t earn the group a free pass when it – or its leadership – does/says something wrong/immoral/exploitative/retrogressive. John Edwards may have had some progressive, populist ideas, but he’s still a shithead for cheating on his cancer-stricken wife and then denying his child (“that” child).

      We’re not doing the animals any favors by falling into line and foregoing self-criticism for hero/idol worship.

  9. Debrah permalink
    January 22, 2010 3:14 pm

    I think what I said was quit being a whiner and make some constructive moves. Come up with better ideas, get involved with PETA management, and make better suggestions. Because you moaning on this website does nothing useful because for the most part you are preaching to the choir. As far as quitting your day job, well some people have and they are doing what they can and not just complaining about other people.

    All those people that you guys are claiming just look at PETA and accuse them of being nuts for these kinds of activities would use absolutely any excuse to not consider what they say regarding animal rights. If they stood on street corners handing out pamphlets like Jehovah’s Witnesses do, they’d be labelled “goofy quasi -religious nuts”. But you of all people should understand that that mealy-mouthed, “butter wouldn’t melt in my mouth” kind of activism gets absolutely nowhere. Suggest something more effective for Gods sakes!

    • January 22, 2010 3:22 pm

      Debrah, it’s rather presumptive of you to assume what Kelly or any of us do or do not do for animals. Or that it is somehow less effective than PETA.

      PETA has a message I agree with – animals are not here for us to exploit. I think we all agree with that.

      Some of PETA’s tactics are off-putting, offensive and not helpful. I think it is absolutely fair to voice opposing opinions on the matter without having to dive into PETA’s upper management and “change things”.

    • January 22, 2010 6:00 pm

      Humor me for a moment, if you will, Debrah. What are you doing if not “moaning on this website”?

      By the way, if I actually believed that PETA management cared about my opinion and might thoughtfully consider it, then perhaps I would approach them with different ideas. Only, none of this criticism is exactly new; PETA’s heard all this before, and they don’t give a flying monkey what Marji or I think.

      Why bang my head against a wall when I can simply shift my support to vegan groups whose ethics and tactics are consistent with my beliefs? PETA isn’t the only game in town.

  10. January 25, 2010 3:58 am

    Debrah….

    The one argument you have against the reality… that the majority of cruelty in this world is actually not committed mainly by human men is that you saw a T shirt in a gift shop that read “I club baby seals”? And therefore in your opinion it is moms (women) who are most likely buying those shirts and that proves women are just as violent as men?
    That’s it?
    That’s really your answer?
    Please understand what a misuse of the “human” brain that is.
    I think you would be better off trying to research up on the one female matador in Northern Spain.

    I’m blown away by the women I’ve met that are so apologetic of the male violence in this world. I’ve had countless conversations with women who say that women are just as violent as men. This is simply not true…not even a good argument…
    Statistically you can’t find one human culture in history where women went out in groups or in “teams” and massacred others.

    PETA does play into male supremacy and sexism in the type of ads discussed above. It is wrong and it only hurts women and animals.

  11. January 25, 2010 9:07 pm

    I agree with everything you say, but I think you don’t comprehend how low the normal human vibration is. You hope that people will make choices based on compassion. I have learned the majority will not. If we wait for humanity to intensify there will be far too many lives lost. Every possible method to every possible age group and facet of life must be approached and targeted. This require a vast array of different possibilities, creativity and techniques. And one major difference is that humans can speak up for themselves. They can choose to remove their clothes for the sake of animal liberation. Animals can not. This is a very major difference between the equality of all living beings.

  12. Marji permalink
    January 25, 2010 9:53 pm

    “They can choose to remove their clothes for the sake of animal liberation.”

    I think this is an unfortunate position to take. I fail to see how exploiting female bodies to “liberate” other female bodies is, in any manner, shape or form proven effective in transforming behavior. Sure, it takes all kinds, but it seems we should be taking some ethical stances of our own and not endorse the objectification of 1/2 the world’s population. Not when the end goal is to STOP objectification of 50+ billion abused animals.

    “but I think you don’t comprehend how low the normal human vibration is. You hope that people will make choices based on compassion. I have learned the majority will not.”

    Oh, Amanda! This is such a sad thing to read! I can’t see us making much of an impact with a perspective like that. I am thankful my experience with people has not been so negative or left me feeling completely hopeless. I’m bummed yours has been so sadly the opposite.

  13. January 26, 2010 11:48 am

    I am in total agreement here. I am rather shocked by PETA’s tactics as of late…I am not an object. The means does not justify the end.

  14. January 24, 2011 3:01 pm

    Some really interesting and intelligent thoughts here. I am a PETA supporter and although I don’t agree with every tactic they use I have to say they have been the most effective in bringing animal rights issue to the social concious.

    I too don’t really like all the nudity but see how it’s effective in getting attention. I guess the message of your article is: does the end justify the means?

Trackbacks

  1. Intersectionality ‘Round the Interwebs, No. 15: BEEF!, Bitches & “Bruised Feelings” » V for Vegan: easyVegan.info

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 90 other followers

%d bloggers like this: