11 November 2016 "The Issue of Attempting to Tackle More Than One Issue At A Time"
An interesting Google search experiment
that I discovered a few weeks ago is to type “PETA ads” into Google images, and
to count the number of seconds it takes for you to angrily shut your laptop. It
only took me thirty-seven seconds. But for some of my friends, the search
didn’t even make it that far.
For those who haven’t yet experienced
this “PETA ads” on Google images experience, let me impress upon you a few of
my favorite images. The first one I saw, and the one that is arguably one of
the most disgusting, pictures Pamela Anderson wearing a skimpy bikini and
sitting in a suggestive pose. Her body parts are separated by dotted lines, and
each is labeled with a word like “rump,” “breast,” “ribs,” etc. “All animals
have the same parts,” the ad prominently displays. “Have a heart, go
vegetarian.”
Another one of my favorites pictures a
naked woman covered in vines and holding a bright red apple. The caption
explains: “Eating Meat Is a Sin: Go Vegetarian.”
And my final example really pushes the
limit—it pictures a woman in skintight, ripped clothing and chains. Her
carefully bruised face looks soft, and her makeup is done carefully. “SHACKLED,
BEATEN, ABUSED,” exclaims the caption. “Stop Cruelty to Elephants.”
PETA is world famous for producing extremely
offensive ads in an attempt to further its agenda. It frequently runs highly
publicized campaigns targeting specific corporations. Its annual “We’d Rather
Go Naked Than Wear Fur” campaign features nude models.[1]
And it has no trouble comparing animal slaughter to horrific events of genocide
or murder in the past—insert the “Holocaust On Your Plate” campaign, or their
comparison of animal meat-eating to the Manitoba Greyhound bus beheading.[2]
PETA doesn’t seem to recognize limits in
advertising, and this has often caused a whirlwind of problems. The word
“ethical” is part of the organization’s name, and yet PETA seems to have
trouble understanding ethics when creating material to present its mission to
the public. If PETA is so concerned with ethical treatment for all, despite
one’s species, shouldn’t it also be concerned with the messages it
spreads—whether they are sexist or untrue, or perpetuate human inequalities
throughout the world?
The problem I have with organizations
like PETA is that they can’t seem to attack more than one social issue at a
time. I equate PETA with organizations like American Apparel—in their quest to
further a specific mission, (for PETA—ethical treatment of animals, for
American Apparel—environmentalism and locally-made products) they seem
perfectly okay allowing the perpetuation of other social problems occur
directly through their organization (in this case, through their advertising.)
To me, that’s something entirely too hypocritical. The raising of one issue
above another completely eliminates the credibility of an organization. Who’s
to say that animal rights or environmentalism are any more important issues
than the perpetuation of sexist norms, or the exploitation of young women for
the sake of advertising? Certainly not PETA.
The ironic part of it is that scandals
like these that are associated with organizations like PETA often discourage
people from donating or becoming part of them. Maybe by cutting down on its
scandalous advertising campaign PETA would lose money, but I can guarantee that
it would also gain more followers.
It’s sad that some organizations
believe they must turn their mission into something highly specialized at the
expense of other missions in order to be successful. It’s something I hope
other organizations can learn from and develop differently. Maybe then we won’t
be forced to choose between women’s rights and animal rights.
Comments
Post a Comment