Yesterday I opened up the National NOW Times, and there on page 14 is a full-color quarter-page ad for PETA. (At least this one is of the inoffensive pig picture variety.) My perception of NOW has just gone from “fusty” to “stupid”. I’m disappointed that they’re accepting advertising from an organization that depends so heavily on spectactularly sexist campaigns.

I didn’t realize that we had to take a vote of every Jew on the planet, and if one disagrees that something is anti-Semitic, it’s not.

Fuckwits.

*is considering eating meat again, buying Burberry, etc*

Just as every feminist has her own reasons for being so and ways of going about it, so do vegetarians. PETA does not speak for all of us.

What ARE their goals? Save animals?

PETA is a pretty confusing organization. On the one hand, they equate the lives of animals and people. On the other hand, when asked to help raise money to feed cattle starving in a blizzard, they refuse because the cattle are just going to be eaten eventually, anyways. If animals and people should be considered equals, then should we help animals regardless of their grim future, or should we refuse to help people because they’re going to die soon, anyways?

Looking at PETA membership doesn’t make it much easier to see what they stand for. I’m sure there’s a pretty big difference between how Ingrid Newkirk feels about animals and their treatment vs how members actively involved in animal rights/welfare feel about it vs how members who just joined because they thought “I’ll support you guys – I love animals!” feel about it.

So yeah, I’m wondering right along with Em: what are their goals? What are they working towards, and what is their mission statement? Do their actions support this? Somebody with a bit more time than I have should break this all down and post it.

Feel better that someone already on your side feels angry, alienated and and unheard for the broader point she was trying to make?

Well, see, that’s what we’ve been saying all along. PETA’s use of cheesecake to get attention for its message angers and alienates a lot of feminists, and we certainly feel unheard when defenders of PETA dismiss our concerns because the ends justify the means.

They have a lot of money and dupe a lot of people into believing they are about animal welfare.

They’re not.

They want to eliminate animal husbandry. No cats, no dogs, no birds – no pets. No cows, horses, sheep – no domestic animals.

The Thai elephant thing is a disgrace and I agree with them on that one. I also agree that wild animals should not be used in circuses and canned hunts. I have more faith in the SPCA and other animal welfare orgs than I could ever have in peta and their cousins at HSUS, ELF, ALF, PCRM, etc. Too much money going in, none going out to actually protect animals.

The ads are ho-hum, peta hasn’t had an original idea in decades. Too busy lobbying at all levels of government to bother coming up with anything original I guess.

The paternalistic, condescending way which I was treated here in the comments explains volumes.

The only thing I’m going to say on this subject right now is that when you come into a thread where people are clearly upset about something wrong and define for them who the “real enemy” is (real enemy are your words), then you are being paternalistic and condescending in the first place. When you tell progressive leftists that the progressive left needs to learn a lesson as a critique of their actions, you are being paternalistic and condescending in the first place. When you cite yourself as an example of living this lesson you’ve determined progressives need to learn and fighting your definition of the real enemy in juxtaposition to what people here are doing, you are being paternalistic and condescending in the first place.

If you are going to be paternalistic and condescending in the first place, you ought not be surprised when people respond that way to you. People here are adults who have made their own judgments as to who the “enemy” is. People here are adults who have made their own judgments as to how they should carry on the fight for their causes. You may disagree with them, but there are other ways to express that disagreement. Completely dismissing their judgments out of hand isn’t necessarily going to endear you to the commentariat.