Letters to the Editor
-
clarification
beigelights,
I wasn't saying that there aren't a lot of women with a lot of problems in nude dancing and modeling, what I was saying is that they aren't ALL that way. And I never said that burlesque, stripping, or anything else was revolutionary, or even empowering. In fact, most people I know do burlesque because they consider it to be a dying art form that shouldn't be lost to history. I don't think that stripping is in and of itself empowering at all. I think (and know) that there are women who already feel empowered who have made a choice and have a job that they are comfortable with. What I was trying to make clear is that I think that over-generalizations about any group of women in any industry are harmful to feminist discourse. And I don't think that it is fair to question the consistency of one set of women for incorporating their politics into work or performance while ignoring internal (often larger) inconsistencies between women's political stances and their work in other venues and fields. I, personally, have never felt more exploited than when I was a legal secretary in a big corporate law firm.
And I agree that physics is cool. But some women are better at dance and theater than at studying particles and energy.
-
peta is trying to break the link in peoples minds between satisfying human instincts and exploiting animals
in order to do this they have to represent the possibility of instincts being satisfied in a manner that doesn't exploit animals. The problem is that a lot of people see some comparison between men wanting to have sex with women and people wanting to exploit animals. PETAs campaigns EFFECTIVELY exposes that linkage on an emotional level. If it WEREN'T upsetting prudes and puritans that would prove it wasn't hitting its target. No it may not persuade a lot fence wobblers in the short run but a message is being purposefully put out.
-
Dick
What PETA is doing is preaching to a great deal LESS than the actual choir. With their childish, hypocritical methods of publicizing themselves they not only alienate people such as myself, a vegetarian for at least fifteen years, but mainstream people without whom a movement cannot ultimately succeed.
I am not a prude, nor am I a puritan. But I do not like to see an organization that aggressively promotes itself as being in favor of animals' rights do so at the expense of women's dignity and worth.
What you clearly do not get is that men's desire to have sex with women is not the primary motive of existence for women. PETA's depiction of a woman's pubic area as, if untrimmed, disgusting, does not have ONE SINGLE THING to do with men's desire to have sex with women. My crotch belongs to me even when I'm not having sex, hence it is not relevant to men's desire to have sex with women. It's a body part, and someone else calling it disgusting to make a point about animals is puerile and insulting.
I am genuinely sorry that you cannot see why PETA's tactics are offensive to many women, as well as many men. But if you can't see why women are offended to have perfectly natural body parts labeled disgusting, and you can't see why we don't view every representation of women merely as an expression of men's desire for sex, then you clearly do not have a well-rounded understanding of women.
-
What you clearly do not get is that men's desire to have sex with women is not the primary motive of existence for women
It's pretty funny that you would accuse me of not being aware of THIS. Some people might actually think I am too aware of it. Are you going to start NOT being bothered by animal suffering because PETA offends you? As long as people who OPPOSE animal rights can rely on an association between being denied meat and being denied sex there will be a huge reservoir of "good will" towards eating meat and exploiting animals. Peta is trying to drain it.
-
PETA is doing what it has to do
PETA's net assets according to it's most recent 990, found here: http://www.guidestar.org/index.jsp
are $15 million. The Humane Society's are $200 million. So apparently PETA's headline-grabbing-at-all-costs tactics aren't that effective. Even given the difference in animal-rights missions between the two, that asset gap is HUGE.
-
i don't care if women shave (their pubes) or not, since it's extra trouble they probalby shouldn't as far as I am concerned
but it's a ridiculous form of puritanism to ban discussion of/reference to the matter since so many people, male and female, do it and like others to do it.
-
It is respectfully suggested that PETA's new slogan should be:
Eat Pussy, Not Meat.
-
PETA and the human society are playing different roles.
The humane society is trying to implement mitigation of suffering in ways that most people already approve of in principle. PETA is trying to fundamentally change the way people think about animals. For the record I don't agree with PETA about some things, animal research for instance is unfortunately necessary.
-
Who's
trying to "ban discussion of/reference to the matter" of women's pubic hair?!?!? The objection is that PETA called women's naturally occurring body hair "disgusting." Funny, I bet a lot of the waxes and creams used to remove that hair are tested on animals. . .
-
Are you going to start NOT being bothered by animal suffering because PETA offends you?
The reason this animal lover supports the Humane Society and not PETA is because of their offensive ad campaigns. I suspect that offending people like me who would otherwise support them is at least part of the reason PETA doesn't have $200 million in the bank like the HS does. But hey, they've got the $20's those vegan strip club guys didn't spend at the bar. . .
-
Still Dick...
It's pretty clear you don't get the discussion of women in any way if it's not in relation to men.
Beige - I would say PETA is doing what it has to do to get headlines. If that's all it was I would just ignore them, as I do most days, and donate my time and money to organizations that I believe DO try to help animals more than they try to feed their spotlight-hungry egos, like HSUS, like WSPA.
But the problem is that PETA's singleminded pursuit of the spotlight, with such fantastically well thought-out and mature stunts as writing to the Mayor of Hamburg, NY asking him to change the name if the town (Genius! I bet that saved a lot of lives...) has immeasurably trivialized and set back the causes of vegetarianism and animal rights. When mainstream, still-meat eating, fur-wearing people think of vegetarians and animal rights, they think of PETA. They think of immature, publicity-seeking idiots. I see it all the time. When people find out I'm a vegetarian, they assume PETA represents me.
You're right that the fact HSUS has much more assets represents the fact that they're more successful in getting their message out. They're also more successful in getting effective legislation, like the recent Human Farming measure they collected signatures for in California. Like the fact that they and the ASPCA kept Michael Vick in the headlines.
PETA meanwhile, is so lacking in credibility that even when they go to a prosecutor with egregious video evidence of mistreatment of animals, as in the case of Butterball turkeys, they can't get charges brought. They've thrown away their credibility for name recognition, and ended up trashing both.
I don't dislike PETA because they're extreme, or because they think outside the box. I loathe PETA because they make all ethical vegetarians look foolish, because they are about animal rights solely on PETA's terms, and because they think it's just fine to treat women like meat, so long as it's in the purported name of animals.
That being said, Dick, your lack of success with women astonishes me...