Am I the only vegetarian in the world who hates PETA? (note: this does not mean I hate PETA members, just the organization itself) After half an hour of googling it seems that I am. About the only links I could find were to deleted threads on various PETA and vegetarian boards. It's not that I'm against vegetarianism or veganism, I'm an ethical vegetarian myself. It's the confrontational, any means to achieve the end, attitude that PETA promotes that really pisses me off. I think things like the holocaust crap and telling kids that their mom's a murderer turns more people against vegetarianism and vegetarians than anything else. Well, the corrupt leadership, cultish behavior and support of terrorists bugs me as well. So am I the only one? I'm just curious, please don't hate me if you disagree.
I kind of have to agree with you on this, jesus. I don't really like the tactics that they use to get people's attention. Like spraying spray paint on fur coats...I mean, all the company/individual is going to do is turn it in to their insurance companies and they get another one. You're doubling the killing of innocent animals in that case. Some of what they do is pretty decent, but most, I have to say isn't.
Well, I do not "hate" PETA. I believe there are several valid criticisims of certain ads and campaigns, as well as the seemingly negative image the group has imparted upon veg*ns and activists in general. However, I also believe that there are several PETA projects that deserve praise. For one, no other large group so consistently and inexpensively supports our young teen advocates. While many organizations have handouts and books for teen veg*ns, most of these materials are hard to come by and cost-prohibitive. Also, we shouldn't overlook the role of PETA in important reforms, such as the campaign against cosmetics testing on animals. If we would have relied on conservative, old-guard animal groups to make changes in the corporate and consumer world, animal advocacy would probably be in the same boat as it was 30 years ago. In my view, little will come from PETA-hating and PETA-bashing. They have certainly heard it before, and I think that's territory better suited for hardline consumptive-users and talk-radio screamers anyway. I do think the organization needs more open dialog with everyday activists and veg*ns, on how its choices and campaigns help or harm them. In the meantime, ethical veg*ns don't automatically have to support PETA. There are many organizations out there. If you wish to support a veg*n organization, choose to support one whose policies you agree with.
Oh, and a word about the spray paint on fur coats thing. This popular image of activists, tossing paint on fur-wearing passers-by on city streets, has been exaggerated. While incidents of this activity probably did occur, especially at the height of the fur debate in the 1980s and early 90s, it was undoubtedly overblown by the fur industry. In the late 1980s, ABC News polled 200 urban women who regularly wore fur. None of them had ever been painted on, and only a relatively small percentage reported being verbally harrassed by activists on the street. It is true that some anti-fur demonstrations have used discarded fur coats, often "bloodied" by paint or dye. Also, some underground, more militant groups have vandalized fur displays. This probably confuses the issue in the public eye, as by word of mouth a demonstration with unwanted furs mutates into hordes of little old ladies having paint dumped onto them in the streets.
I don't do PETA, either. I think they've done some good things, and I do often suggest they check their website if they're new to vegetarianism because from what I'm told it has some good tips for starters, but, for the most part, the organization itself bothers me. I think more than three quarters of the time the only thing they accomplish is making animal rights advicates look like a joke. People make fun of people like me because they see things PETA says and does and assumes everyone who is pro-animal rights is like that. It's the same shit I get from people who think that every feminist is militant. I think the members generally have their hearts in the right place, but the organization pisses the hell out of me.
I agree. As many questionable things that they do, they support low-budget activists by offering a wide variety of free activism packs/kits, and they do things such as tableing and other things too, so lets not focus on the negatives here. They do do controversial things, such as "objectifying women" in nude fur protests (but the women volunteer to do this, they are not being paid or anything, they want to help animals any way they can, and if attracting male audiences helps, then do what ever you want), civil disobedience (which, again, DOES help, and attracts a lot of attention, perhaps like in many cases: A huge animal-lover sees protesters, thinks "Hm, maybe they're onto something" or "Wow, I wonder how I can help animals, too"), and other illegal/questionable practices, but they are trying, and they help in any way they can. I do think it's stupid to pay a town to change it's name from Slaughterville, and I do not agree with everything they do, but when you're doing thousands of protests/activism, it's impossible to please everybody all the time. The point is, they try, and they attract thousands of actvisits/help people to become veg*n "Well, the corrupt leadership, cultish behavior and support of terrorists bugs me as well." I don't know what the hell the "cultish" thing is about, and they do NOT support terrorists in any way (please explain to me how they do so I can understand where you're coming from). I'm not going to say you're wrong though, because you do have your own opinion about them. You may not agree with what they do, and that's fine.
They have made multiple contributions to ELF, a group that has caused an estimated $43 million in damages since 1996, and they have contributed even more money to the defense funds of several convicted arsonists, most notably $43 thousand for Rodney Coronado, if you don't think he's a terrorist maybe you should hear >>this<<.
There are a lot of ethical Veg*ns who choose not to support PETA. I'd say that roughly half of the people on the Veggie Boards (another message board I post at) are not PETA supporters. I also know that a lot of people who would otherwise support PETA have a problem with the in-your-face campaigns like "Holocaust on your Plate" and "Your Mommy Kills Animals." I'm a PETA member, and here's my take: PETA is outrageious and in-your-face. That may turn off a lot of people. However, there is really no other way to get the AR cause in the news. No one would have heard about the horrible conditions in which most dairy cows now live if PETA wouldn't have sued the California Cheese Board over the "Happy Cows" campaign, for instance. After all, look at who pays for the news with advertizing dollars. All you Americans out there, just for fun, one of these days, count how many Proctor & Gamble commercials air in an hour on any given network, including cable. Since P&G is a major vivisectionist, how many news reports would you expect to see condemning or even relating the reality that P&G continues to employ cruel animal tests to test household and personal care products? Or, consider the advertizing budget of the National Dairy Board, the Beef Council, etc., along with the advertizing budget of Atkins. Even if PETA had the money to get opposing commercials on television, few would air them. CBS, for instance, refused to air an anti-meat commercial filmed by PETA, claiming that the ad, which linked meat-eating to impotence, was in bad taste. Ironically, they then proceeded to broadcast footage of Janet Jackson's bare breast. If you can't even pay to get your message out there to the media, then you have to do something outrageous and controversial enough to make the news for being controversial and outrageous. When you've gotten your name out there enough then you can start to bring about change. For instance, PETA was recently successful in getting highly disturbing footage of horrible cruelty to chickens at a plant that provided KFC with chicken out on CBS News and other news outlets. I would be willing to bet that quite a few people stopped eating chicken after seeing that footage. There are a lot of animal rights organizations worth supporting that don't have the reputation of PETA, so if you don't like PETA, feel free to send your money or donate your time to Farm Sanctuary or another group like that. But I think that it is pretty clear that most of the more low-key organizations would not even exist if PETA wasn't there to put the AR concept out there in the media to begin with.
Here's a link to their main site: www.peta.org Not sure where I stand with PETA. They often do very noble things like the recent expose on KFC and their literature is usually good (colourful, easy to read etc) and have success. however... I can also agree with jesuswasamonkey. There is just something vaguly repellant about the organisation that crops out now and then. I don't know who uses their messageboards, but their threads are probably the most hysterical, irritating drivel I've ever seen. I generally avoid it, which isn't very hard. (no offence to those who post here of course) In general I respect their efforts and sentiments, even if they are a little misguided at times. But I'm not planning on joining up anytime soon.
PETA's contributions to Mr. Coronado and similar underground activists has consisted of paying some of their legal fees. The money went to their legal funds, not financing for arson or bombs. It should also be noted that the "lab" Coronado destroyed was a center designed to make mink better fur "production units." That doesn't excuse arson, of course, but some in the opposition have made it sound as if it were a children's hospital or something. That said, I agree that PETA made a very bad and unwise call making these contributions. There are many nonviolent activists and groups who could have used legal/court funding. PETA should have realized that, at the very least, giving to anyone associated with the militant underground would have damaged their support. It should be noted that Kathleen Marquardt (of "animal scam" fame) should not be given much credibility by anyone associated with any form of animal advocacy. Not only does she and her followers go after PETA, but also mainstream and conservative animal welfare groups like the Animal Welfare Institute and the ASPCA. She was a featured speaker at a rally in support of cockfighting, a bloody and cruel spectacle illegal in most US states. She also supports sealing, whaling, and basically any other use of animals, as well as attacking environmental regulations. I consider extreme consumptive users, with their often hateful and stereotype-filled rhetoric, to be just as extremist as the most hardline vegans. PS. Organizations I feel deserve animal rights support: www.cok.net www.veganoutreach.org
