To be "fair" to PETA though, that's kind of the point of everything they do to "hold the radical line." I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying they're perfectly aware of how uncouth their campaigns are. They plan them that way precisely so that people will get upset and blog about them. They're not so much actively misogynist (or racist, depending on the campaign) as they are actively offensive.

Skoochie, either way, the ends don't justify the means. I am reading this right now, and I am still going to grill my steaks and drink my beers when I get home from work today. Often times, "radical" campaigns are anything but ...in fact, it turns people off.

To have the knowlege that something is misogynistic and to do it anyway for your own benefit is often worst that some jackass on the street, who is just a sexist because he doesn't know any better.

The worst kind of misogynist is the kind who understands oppression of women, the patriarchy and all ...

PETA's awareness of how uncouth their campaign is is one thing, but to pass off mysogyny and sexism as excuses for getting people to "notice" is a little ridiculous. When you use -isms to fight other -isms, it defeats the purpose. If PETA shifted its emphasis on the objectification of women to something directly related to the abuse and mistreatment of animals, more feminists would be on their side. I know I would be. Of course, I get that the "shock factor" of all of this is what often drives their work. I'm just a very strong believer in coalition building, and this sure as heck isn't making that very possible among feminist and environmentalists crowds.

The environmentalist crowd is NOT PETA. Not even close. PETA has been known to release animals into wild populations (after breaking into and vandalizing property) that are unprepared to survive there. This can seriously harm natural habitat systems (by introducing unnatural predators, for example) and create environmental problems. Environmentalism is about respecting nature and preserving wild places, creating sustainable ecosystems and making sure that there are open places to hike, fish, hunt, ski, bird watch, etc... (not all of which PETA would agree with).

I think PETA has as much to do with environmentalism as Evangelicals do with Christ's real message.

"pass off mysogyny and sexism as excuses for getting people to "notice" is a little ridiculous. When you use -isms to fight other -isms, it defeats the purpose."
whoa. I think you are reading way too much into PETA's actions. Do you really think they give a rip about these "-isms" of which you speak?? Their goals are stated quite specifically on their website and it does not include pissing off women.

"pass off mysogyny and sexism as excuses for getting people to "notice" is a little ridiculous. When you use -isms to fight other -isms, it defeats the purpose."
whoa. I think you are reading way too much into PETA's actions. Do you really think they give a rip about these "-isms" of which you speak?? Their goals are stated quite specifically on their website and it does not include pissing off women.

The article you linked actually says that PETA used "inflatable sex dolls," not Real Dolls. Doesn't make the misogyny any better, but it doesn't look like they're spending thousands of dollars on the dolls, either.

"whoa. I think you are reading way too much into PETA's actions. Do you really think they give a rip about these "-isms" of which you speak?? Their goals are stated quite specifically on their website and it does not include pissing off women."

So ... pissing off women is okay as long as that's not the goal? Good to know. As long as I've got a specific goal in mind, I can be as offensive as I'd like and no one is going to call me on it? Awesome. /sarcasm

That's really strange, I could have sworn the pieces I saw on it said they had real dolls, perhaps it was changed? My mistake.

I'm not saying that the ends justify the means, or that their campaigns are "working", but you have to understand that 1) Newkirk admits that PETA isn't trying to change minds at all, just keep the radical line from creeping towards the center, and 2) like the pro-life crowd, they feel they are working against mass murder and enslavement. Like most of you, I don't see it that way, but if you value all lifeforms equally I suppose your perspective changes. It's an entirely different way of looking at the world and it's going to make you act in ways that other people don't easily understand. Dismissively labeling PETA as misogynistic oversimplifies the movement. I think it's a far more compelling and powerful issue to people on the inside (again, exactly like the pro-life movement).

"So ... pissing off women is okay as long as that's not the goal? Good to know. As long as I've got a specific goal in mind, I can be as offensive as I'd like and no one is going to call me on it? Awesome. /sarcasm"

Well, wait, back up a minute. What exactly about their campaign is sexist in the first place?

... So because PETA is out of touch with reality, they're exempt from criticism for their practices? I'm not trying to be obtuse there, Skoochie, but that seems to be what you're saying. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Well, Melody, using a blow up doll and the message "KFC blows!" seems just as tad sexist to me. But I may just be overly sensitive.

Skoochie, no matter how compliacted, complex or passionate PETA is, they are still misogynistic.

(Besides, even if they see the world "entirely differently", that doesn't exuse their sexism or make any less harmful.)

Quote: "

The environmentalist crowd is NOT PETA. Not even close. PETA has been known to release animals into wild populations (after breaking into and vandalizing property) that are unprepared to survive there. This can seriously harm natural habitat systems (by introducing unnatural predators, for example) and create environmental problems. Environmentalism is about respecting nature and preserving wild places, creating sustainable ecosystems and making sure that there are open places to hike, fish, hunt, ski, bird watch, etc... (not all of which PETA would agree with).

I think PETA has as much to do with environmentalism as Evangelicals do with Christ's real message."

First off, who said anything about the environmental movement? Second, the environmental movement cares about the environment for the sake of the environment, not because it is exploitable as a form of entertainment for fishers, hunters, hikers, etc. Third, hunting is terrible for the environment. Killing off all the predators, 'controlling' populations of prey animals by killing more males than females so that they overpopulate every year, and killing off the healthiest animals so that some populations are actually devolving is NOT an environmental prerogative. Also, killing mother deer and leaving their fawns to die, as is commonly overlooked, is extremely cruel. And the amount of garbage that hunters leave in their wake is ridiculous. Hunting is not a natural, noble deed that preserves the environment. They're destroying ecosystems almost as terribly as ranchers.

Also, PETA does not release animals into the environment, you're thinking of groups such as the ALF.

lokispet: you're absolutely right. ALF is the group that does all these radical and seemingly destructive things, PETA's not so proactive. Even though I don't fully support PETA, or ALF, I hate when people mix the two together.

And yes, hunting and fishing DO indeed RUIN the environment. As does factory farming. Factory farming is THE NUMBER ONE CAUSE of greenhouse gases contributing to global warming. just sayin'.

Oh absolutely not, Holli, nothing exempts anyone from criticism, ever! I'm also not making any judgments about who is in touch with reality or not. It is important, however, that we criticize PETA and any other group for the right reasons and within the appropriate social context. That is such a critical step in addressing everything we dislike about society. Obviously this post wasn't intended to engage PETA in debate or provide lengthy analysis of the group's behavior! But in living our everyday lives, and discussing these issues, it's so important to be able to move past surface actions and easy labels and get down to the fundamental motivations and beliefs. That's where change (if possible) is really affected.

"It is important, however, that we criticize PETA and any other group for the right reasons and within the appropriate social context."

"But in living our everyday lives, and discussing these issues, it's so important to be able to move past surface actions and easy labels and get down to the fundamental motivations and beliefs."

This is a feminist blog which is basically the context for this discussion. PETA's motivations and beliefs are not germane to this discussion unless you want to say that the ends justify the means - which you've already said you don't want to say. Since the only issue being discussed is whether or not setting up a blow up doll in a public place along with the message "KFC blows" is sexist, the rest of it really doesn't matter. I also doubt that the point of posting this up on this blog was to send a personal message to PETA to ask them to change their ways.

This is an ongoing issue for PETA, not just an isolated incident. I love to defend underdog, liberal organizations, but PETA'S choices for campaigns blow. It makes it really difficult to defend their methods.

Holli, that's exactly what I said -- "Obviously this post wasn't intended to engage PETA in debate..." I meant absolutely no criticism to the post which, again, quite obviously, is not trying to be anything but a news-alert item.

I was merely adding a perspective that might be useful to keep in mind if we ever engage in discussion with or about people who don't agree with us 100%. Personally, I run into such people quite frequently and it's empowering and quite productive to show them that I understand what they are trying to accomplish, even if I disagree. I can't live in an isolated world composed entirely of feminist carnivores, but neither am I going to give up and not try to change anything. From what I've seen in this blog, I think there's room for proactive discussion even if it expands a little beyond the original post (which is the whole point of having blog comments).

I was responding to feministorbust's comment about building colations between feminists and environmentalists, which I thought implied PETA. I don't consider PETA to be environmentalists.

For me, environmentalism is about conservation. Activities like fishing and hunting can go along with conservation. I'm not talking about people on ATVs ripping up forests and habitats, leaving their beer cans in the woods. I'm talking about honest hunters and fishermen who work to be a part of nature and who work hard for conversation purposes. I support regulations and licenses, which limit the amount of impact humans have and put profits toward environmental conservation. Since PETA is pretty unconcerned about wild places or conservation, I felt defensive. I apologize for derailing the thread.

And I apologize for confusing PETA with the ALF. I realize that my thoughts above weren't clearly expressed.

"I was merely adding a perspective that might be useful to keep in mind if we ever engage in discussion with or about people who don't agree with us 100%."

Fair enough, Skoochie. Perspective is always important. It had seemed to me that you were acting as some kind of apologist for PETA's action here, so I'm sorry for misunderstanding your point. :)

Also new (I believe) from PETA is a site I won't link to, disparaging Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen with pejorative names and all manner of derision and insult because they've been photographed in fur. The site admonishes visitors to send a message to "Hairy-Kate" and "Trashley" about their fashion choices. Just tacky, nasty behavior that is (by nature of the fashion industry) going to target women disproportionately and with increasingly shrill and borderline misogynistic rhetoric.

PETA has never been known for their classy protests. I'd put them up there with the anti-choice groups for their disgusting photos that have no point behind them other than to shock.

Why are these people flying around the world to protest for the "rights" of animals? Couldn't the ridiculous amounts of money this group has be better spent towards helping human lives?

"But in living our everyday lives, and discussing these issues, it's so important to be able to move past surface actions and easy labels and get down to the fundamental motivations and beliefs."

IOW: It's important that we derail any discussion about sexism or feminism by wanking about nebulous topics like the 'fundamental beliefs' of vegetarians.

Also, of course they didn't use Real Dolls. Those things cost about $4,000 each and weigh around 100 pounds.

The commentary on this little tidbit surprises me. Where's the criticism for the Philippines for seizing the dolls? Have we really bought the "sex is evil" frame so completely?

PETA is bad for having inflatable dolls, and the Philippines did the right thing by confiscating them? Really?

The commentary on this little tidbit surprises me. Where's the criticism for the Philippines for seizing the dolls? Have we really bought the "sex is evil" frame so completely?

PETA is bad for having inflatable dolls, and the Philippines did the right thing by confiscating them? Really?

"IOW: It's important that we derail any discussion about sexism or feminism by wanking about nebulous topics like the 'fundamental beliefs' of vegetarians."

Thank you.

What I know of PETA can be summed up easily: each and every one of their ads I have ever seen showcase naked hot n sexxaay chicks. And now this.

Because women are a great meal replacement for animals. Or sexy chicks will sleep with you if you stop wearing fur. Or something.

I don't get it and I really don't care. If this is supposed to interest me, shock me, or convert me, they failed on all accounts.

DESTRA
Why are these people flying around the world to protest for the "rights" of animals? Couldn't the ridiculous amounts of money this group has be better spent towards helping human lives?

This is a species-ist statement. They are the People for the Ethical Treatment of ANIMALS. Their ultimate goal is to end animal exploitation and abuse. Sorry YOU don't see that as a credible goal, just as misogynists don't view womens' rights as a credible goal. You don't have to marginalize animal suffering to highlight human suffering. Animals are completely voiceless.
(If you care so much about human rights, then do something about it. If you are already doing something about it, then good.)

Not sure if you are aware, but many people who have pro-animal views also share pro-women and pro-minority views as well. These are not mutually exclusive ideas! Compassion isn't limited. We don't have a set number of things we can care about in one day, do we?

Obviously I do not agree with everything Peta does, but they have in fact been responsible for actually helping fight animal abuse and torture. They have helped many people go vegetarian, have gotten fur pulled from stores, obtained video evidence of animal abuse that would otherwise go undetected, etc.

Do I wish they'd stop some of the more childish stuff? Yes. But Ingrid Newkirk (president) makes no bones about it- she will do anything to bring attention to animal suffering even if it offends. She doesn't live rich like lots of CEOs. They do use their money to help animals.

"PETA has never been known for their classy protests."

What on earth is a "classy" protest? You shouldn't oppose injustice unless your opposition is voiced in a "classy" way?

What on earth is a "classy" protest? You shouldn't oppose injustice unless your opposition is voiced in a "classy" way?

How about your opposition to injustice should be voiced in a way that doesn't commit another injustice.
If you can stand for animal rights without being racist or antisemitic or xenophobic, you can just as easily stand for animal rights without being sexist, and it's every bit as important to do so.

It is only animal-exploiting train of thought that calls comparing suffering of one creature to suffering of another racist. Unfortunately, the people of this planet have been exploiting, abusing, and torturing animals for so long that some people can't even understand the line of thinking that goes into these comparisons.

"Couldn't the ridiculous amounts of money this group has be better spent towards helping human lives?"

I'll take the more direct approach. Specie-ism will not simply go away.

I do not agree with the more extreme statements and actions of PETA. However, as a student, I read their monthly magazine at the library. I can see that they also aim to improve human lives, if indirectly. Eliminating unnecessary animal testing will lead to better tests that actually apply to human physiology. Improving farming conditions will improve the quality and safety of the food supply. Using farmed food for humans to eat instead of to fatten cattle, can improve living conditions for humans, particularly in developing nations. Becoming vegetarian or completely vegan has scientifically proven health benefits. Understanding animals have rights and we humans simply share the planet, will improve the human spirit, similar to realizing women and minorities have rights. [Please do not accuse me of trivializing a history of human suffering. I am just saying.] Treating animals with respect can decrease violence in general, especially when violence against animals by sick individuals escalates to crimes against humans.

Hmm. That is all I can think of.

But yes, PETA methods are often deplorable. Publicly displayed posters and billboards of bloodied and abused animals can be as shocking to the uninitiated as Pro-Life campaigns.

Not sure if you are aware, but many people who have pro-animal views also share pro-women and pro-minority views as well. These are not mutually exclusive ideas! Compassion isn't limited. We don't have a set number of things we can care about in one day, do we?

This is very true! I am very pro-animal welfare, and that doesn't mean I don't have energy or time left over for fighting the good fight as far as misogyny and other issues goes.

People who attack animal welfare activists by saying our energy would be "better spent" on human issues are like the people who get angry when their mother remarries, because they think she only has so much love to give.

Compassion is NOT finite.

I detest PETA because they use the same tactics as anti-choice radicals. They scream at you while showing you disgusting, usually doctored pictures, trying to shame you into doing what they want you to do. PETA has even had a campaign comparing eating animals to the holocaust. Where have I heard THAT tactic before?

I'm a vegetarian for entirely environmental reasons. Meat is a luxury that considering the population of the world and the amount of energy it takes to produce it, I simply cannot justify consuming. The fact that this choice also means I don't fund slaughterhouses is a fringe benefit; if eating meat had the same energy impact as eating a vegetarian diet, I would probably eat meat.

I think they do turn people off vegetarianism, which is unfortunate because not eating meat is a really easy way to reduce your carbon footprint.

Why are these people flying around the world to protest for the "rights" of animals? Couldn't the ridiculous amounts of money this group has be better spent towards helping human lives?

PETA is fucked up. But I strongly defend the right of genuine animal rights group to spend what money they can dig up on travelling to conferences and raising awareness.

OTOH:

Obviously I do not agree with everything Peta does, but they have in fact been responsible for actually helping fight animal abuse and torture. They have helped many people go vegetarian, have gotten fur pulled from stores, obtained video evidence of animal abuse that would otherwise go undetected, etc.

They've been known to steal animals from shelters and put them down themselves. Their ultimate goal (though unrealistic) is to have no pets at all (and also have all humans be vegetarian, not just have sustainable farming - WTF?) - and while I acknowledge the selfishness of wanting pets (a) domesticated animals would either die out or destroy ecosystems in the wild and (b) life would not be worth living without companion animals. I mean that. Oh, and I really think it's difficult for children to learn compassion without exposure to any companion animals at all.

Anyway. *cough* PETA sucks all on levels >:|

PETA are terrorists.

They take an excellent cause like animal rights and pervert it with their methods. Now when people think of animal rights, they think of PETA throwing blood and pipe-bombing people. And 99.99999999999999999999999% of animal rights activists are absolutely NOT into that.

"PETA has even had a campaign comparing eating animals to the holocaust. Where have I heard THAT tactic before?"

Didn't the Nazis themselves compare Jews to rats?

"As much as it sucks, if you want to take medications and find cures for debilitating diseases testing on animals is required."

...and it's even more required if the medications and cures are for animal patients (like the way testing on people is a stage of developing new medications and cures for human patients).

"Compassion is NOT finite."

Compassion is not finite, but what comes of that compassion is. People are only willing to give so much time and money out of their lives. While they might have enough feelings to spread around, there is not infinite money and energy to go around. Comparing campaigns and causes to feelings and emotions is idiotic.

This is in response to several comments:

Firstly, we don't have to call one another names just because we disagree. Can we please not be like every other internet debate? This is why I largely avoid looking at comments on the internet.

Destra-
I think you missed the point. Everyone has their own causes, and you can't expect an animal rights organization to shell out money for other causes any more than you can ask Planned Parenthood to donate for materials on educating people about vegetarianism. Who do you think you are to decide which issues are important to someone else?

Fenrisewolf-

Ingrid Newkirk doesn't have animals but to me it seems that you don't know many animal rights activists. I am one and every one I know has animals as companions. We are very much against breeding animals because shelter animals are dying at an alarming rate, but keeping an animal companion (for myself and everyone I know) is not unethical. We as humans created the problem of overpopulation. The least we can do (if it is reasonable, humane, and in our means) is to adopt from a shelter or rescue. I think the problem occurs when you view animals as objects or commodities. I view mine as close family.

So what if they want everyone to be vegetarian? Their goal is to STOP ANIMAL CRUELTY. Vegetarianism is congruent with that belief.

Liza- you obviously don't know anything about Peta. "Throwing blood"? Have you seen them do this? They use PAINT in demonstrations. I don't even know whose blood you'd get for something like that. As far as "terrorism" goes. are you referring to ALF? Even though ALF has never hurt a person or animal. I do not necessarily agree with any sort of destruction of property or anything like that but it's really weak to jump on the bandwagon and call animal rights people "terrorists". It's so played out and everyone uses it. I am sure if they used the term more frequently back then, the Boston Tea Party would have definitely been considered a "terrorist" action. Also... bombs! What are you talking about?! You must have been on the Center for Consumer Freedom site a little too long (which is funded by meat and tobacco industries).

Regarding animal testing- that's not necessarily the way it HAS to be. Currently, the FDA requires that any non "natural" drug (any sort of pain killer, etc) be tested. However, humans are not other animals. Even animal-tested medicines (like Vioxx) get recalled. We need to find a solution for things that will help humans without harming animals. They do not have a choice. The Animal Welfare act does shit for lab animals. They are absolutely tortured. This isn't just rats (which are actually really nice! I have 2!) but primates, cats, dogs, etc. It is absolutely barbaric some of the things they do to animals that are absolutely sentient. There are people working towards reducing and eventually eliminating animal testing. I personally think stem-cell research can help with this. I won't live to see it but I hope one day we can live in a world where everyone is treated with the basic decency and respect for the right to not be tortured, and this includes animals.

I know I skipped over some but I am really tired right now. Excuse any typos.

" There are people working towards reducing and eventually eliminating animal testing. I personally think stem-cell research can help with this."

Good point. Maybe someday new medicines for people could be tested on lab-grown human tissue, new medicines for cats could be tested on lab-grown feline tissue, etc.?

Mina-

are you being sarcastic or not? (I can't tell because it's all text)

"Mina-

"are you being sarcastic or not? (I can't tell because it's all text)"

Nope, I'm honestly looking forward to when medical researchers can do cool stuff like that. :D

Likewise, what if someday they can grow just cloned organs (instead of entire cloned organisms) in a lab? If you or your cat sadly needs a liver transplant then it could be a grown-to-order exact match with no risk of foreign tissue rejection...

I'm a vegetarian and I am ashamed of PETA. They seem to me just like a bunch of ignorant assholes. I agree with their cause, but not with their methods. You can only get people to stop eating meat through education, not by scaring and/or offending them. PETA is just not right.

Mina, while I can't wait for lab-grown organs either, I don't think we'll be moving away from in vivo research any time soon (if ever). Drugs have to be tested in an actual whole body (in vivo) in order to know how they'll perform there. If we could find out what would happen without using animals, we would.

(The rest of this isn't addressed to Mina)

And I am extremely offended by the idea presented that animal testing in labs is inhumane or cruel to the animals. Every legit study should and is required to pass an animal welfare committee to show that their research is worth the sacrifice that the animals are giving, and that the sacrifice is needed. Nobody I know thinks that life (no matter the form; cells, protazoa, mice, chickens, etc) is worthless.

And condsidering my own work involving animal research, I resent the vast generalization made. The short of it is, if we could research what we study without using animals, we would.

If you and whatever formal education you have in the biological sciences can come up with a better solution than what in vivo research provides, please share with the rest of the class.

"Every legit study should and is required to pass an animal welfare committee to show that their research is worth the sacrifice that the animals are giving , and that the sacrifice is needed. "

So, the people who SUPPORT this are deciding it's needed. It must be easy to make the decision of sacrifice of someone else. How is that a sacrifice in the true sense? That is insulting to me.

"If you and whatever formal education you have in the biological sciences can come up with a better solution than what in vivo research provides, please share with the rest of the class."

I see! You are a smarter and better person than me for completing more college than I have. Are you going to continue with classist statements as well (?), because you probably make more money than I do.

"And I am extremely offended by the idea presented that animal testing in labs is inhumane or cruel to the animals."

I understand that sometimes there is simply no substitute for using or sacrificing an animal. Even the vice president of PETA requires insulin tested on dogs, and other animal lovers use medications and procedures tested on animals. It is not hypocrisy to me. (I also eat meat and am not sorry despite the known alternatives.) But I know the testing serves humans, not the animals.

"As far as "terrorism" goes. are you referring to ALF? Even though ALF has never hurt a person or animal. I do not necessarily agree with any sort of destruction of property or anything like that but it's really weak to jump on the bandwagon and call animal rights people "terrorists". It's so played out and everyone uses it. I am sure if they used the term more frequently back then, the Boston Tea Party would have definitely been considered a "terrorist" action. Also... bombs! What are you talking about?! You must have been on the Center for Consumer Freedom site a little too long (which is funded by meat and tobacco industries)."

Yes, incendiary devices and "bombs."

"And I... you know... people get all excited about, 'Oh what's going to happen when - the ALF accidentally kills somebody in an arson?' Well, you know I mean... I think we need to get used to this idea. It's going to happen, okay? It's going to happen.
-- Jerry Vlasak, spokesmen for the Animal Defense League"

"If they won't stop when you ask them nicely, they don't stop when you demonstrate to them what they're doing is wrong, then they should be stopped using whatever means are necessary."
-- Jerry Vlasak, ALF spokesman, In the 60 Minutes interview with Ed Bradley, aired on CBS on Sunday November 13, 2005

Also, no one dying appears to be a technicality. The devices simply did not ignite or explode as planned.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/07/05/EDG6QQ4TU01.DTL

A GASOLINE-filled device in a car bomb fails to go off. Authorities investigating another bombing incident find that after a first bomb exploded, a second bomb was timed to go off when first responders arrived. A recent event in the United Kingdom? Yes, but also in California.

Last week, the Los Angeles Times reported that a bomb was discovered outside the Westside home of Dr. Arthur Rosenbaum, the chief of pediatric ophthalmology at UCLA's Jules Stein Eye Institute. The car bomb failed to explode, despite apparent attempts to detonate it.

In 2003, two bombs exploded at biotech firm Chiron's Emeryville office. Agents believed the second bomb was timed to go off when first responders arrived.

The terrorists behind the American firebombs were not Islamic fanatics, but animal-rights jihadists bent on harming and intimidating scientists who conduct medical research on animals. They also have targeted employees of businesses that might work with researchers, as well as harassed the spouses and children of researchers.

[omission]

So far, animal-rights activists have not killed anyone in the United States, but that does not mean Americans should not fear these extremists. In October 2005, Dr. Jerry Vlasak, a Southern California trauma surgeon who is a leader of the North American Animal Liberation Front, testified before the U.S. Senate and defended killing researchers in order to stop research using animals.

"I don't think you'd have to kill -- assassinate -- too many," Vlasak opined. "I think for 5 lives, 10 lives, 15 human lives, we could save a million, 2 million or 10 million nonhuman lives."
The threats of violence and intimidation work. Last year, UCLA researcher Dario Ringach sent an e-mail to Vlasak in which he proclaimed, "You win" -- he would stop research with animals. Vlasak sent out a triumphant press release.

Vlasak told the Daily Bruin that activists had tried to stop Rosenbaum's research by appealing to UCLA administrators, but had failed. "All reasonable attempts have failed, so we're going to take it to the next level," Vlasak told the student paper.

[end quote]

So they haven't killed anyone so far. At least they are better than pro-lifers on that count.

"It has been estimated that in the past decade, ALF supporters have committed well over 700 criminal acts and caused more than $100 million in damage. Every year in the United States, the number of incidents attributed to ALF increase in size and cost."

Also see list of 126 acts allegedly committed or responsibility claimed by ALF:

http://www.targetofopportunity.com/alf.htm

I expect people will not like this source. In that case, please go to the North American Animal Liberation Press Office, founded by Dr. Vlasak at animalliberationpressoffice dot org. They put out such loveliness as this:

Communiqué from ALF activists
Date: August 2, 2007
Institution targeted: Oregon Health Sciences Vivisector
Received anonymously

Recently, Eliot Spindel, vivisector at the Oregon National Primate Research Center earned a visit from the vegan vigilantes called the ALF. His mansion at 5899 Sunbrook Drive in Lake Oswego Oregon, was given a makeover.

Eliot was awarded this privilege because his crimes against nature are particularly vile. Eliot's research involves addicting pregnant monkeys to Nicotine and killing their newborn babies at regular intervals to test what has been known for decades that smoking causes birth defects. It's time for Eliots blatant abuse of primates to end.

Our message to Eliot is simple: Quit the torture industry and issue an apology or we swear we will make an example out of you. Tonight you got your home and car fucked up with chemicals and spray paint, but what's going to be next, Eliot, spray paint, broken windows or fire bombs?

Look out behind you, Eliot. We have thousands of supporters and more every day. Whatever they pay you in one year, we promise we can match in damage in one night.

We are everywhere, love and inspiration:
ALF

Jeeeeeesus. I must admit, this is the first I am looking into ALF, but this is incredible. This is straight from the horse's mouth about the crimes activists have proudly committed:

"Disclaimer: The Animal Liberation Press Officers do not engage in illegal activities, nor do they know any individuals who do. Rather, the Press Office receives and posts communiqués from anonymous parties and provides comment to the media."

http://www.animalliberationpressoffice.org/

Riiiiiiight.

They have a list of over 115 "most recent direct actions."

Also click on the "international direct action" link for more. Also:

"For a more complete listing of animal liberation events worldwide" www dot directaction dot info

click the link at the bottom of that page, to see a listing back to 2002

ALF leaves lovely messages such as this when a "mysterious package" was found at UC San Diego, which I cannot copy and paste:

http://www.animalliberationpressoffice.org/communiques/ucsd_communique_2007-12-06.pdf

"If we do not see the evactuation of these animals starting by 3:00pm on Tues day we will detonate remotely all explosive devices."

"This will be a 9/11 event for the raising of awareness of what you and institutions like you are doing to these defensles sentiant beings." [sic]

"They are defenseless no more!"

"This is not a hoax. We do not want to see your people hurt. However, if they are in and around these buildings and we detonate . . . "

A.L.F.

How sweet. They "do not want to see [UCSD] people hurt" when the bombs go off.

"'If you and whatever formal education you have in the biological sciences can come up with a better solution than what in vivo research provides, please share with the rest of the class.'

"I see! You are a smarter and better person than me for completing more college than I have."

She's not saying or even implying that. She's implying that if you can come up with a better solution than what in vivo research provides to the biological sciences, you would use whatever formal education you have in the biological sciences in order to do that.

"Are you going to continue with classist statements as well (?), because you probably make more money than I do."

Would it also be classist for an civil engineer to talk about using whatever formal education you have in civil engineering in order to solve a structural problem in building bridges?

"And I am extremely offended by the idea presented that animal testing in labs is inhumane or cruel to the animals."

Maybe what you do isn't "cruel" (although we all must have different definitions, because I think testing an animal against its will is cruel) but other labs indeed DO violate the welfare act. I have seen pictures of beagles with chunks of thigh cut off and then cauterized for the sake of testing (fully conscious). There was an undercover investigation of IAMS and it was found that the dogs were forcefed oil through tubes in their throats, had no bedding or toys in their concrete cells, and cats were found dead because rusty nails had penetrated them. Marshall Farms, which sells ferrets and beagles to testing, had a huge fire that burned alive hundreds of dogs because they couldn't keep their sprinkler system with the code (they recently were fined for it and were told to change it immediately.)

This is cruelty to me.

And as far as using meds that were tested on animals, its not hypocritical because there are no alternatives. If there were, then we would be using them.

*vegan*

A MALE-

Sorry, I was referring to Peta specifically when another person mentioned "throwing blood" and "bombs". I honestly do think "terrorism" depends which side you are on. Maybe ALF believes torturing lab animals is terrorism against animals. I am not a member of ALF, I am a member of a local AR group who uses education and our own very limited resources to help animals in our community. Violence isn't an option for us. I am just tired of everyone lumping all AR people into the "terrorist" category. I should have made myself more clear.

MINA-
Don't pretend her(?) tone wasn't implicative of what I accused it of being. Look how it's phrased.

"MINA-
Don't pretend her(?) tone wasn't implicative of what I accused it of being. Look how it's phrased."

I sure did look. There's nothing classist or snobby about valuing formal education in a field when discussing how research in that same field is done. ;)

Thanks Mina, for clarifying my statement better than I apparently did.

Kmari1222, I agree that that example is cruel, but that is also not a representative case, though I believe that PETA or ALF would probably present it as so.

And PamelaV, I really didn't mean to offend you as such, but I would be curious to see what alternatives you would promote instead, to address the need that animals fill in research.

I, for example, am currently doing nutritional research with parrots to improve the way we're feeding them in captivity for my thesis. How am I supposed to study their nutritional needs, if I can't use them in my research? Like I said earlier, no respected researcher I know chooses to do research with animals (in vivo) when an in vitro or ex vivo design would suffice or even work better.

But yeah I stand by my comment earlier that someone would probably need at least a BS in a relative field (animal science, the biological sciences, etc) in order to actually contribute a workable alternative to in vivo studies. But so far no one has been able to get rid of it entirely. Maybe with stem cell research or cloning technology we'll get closer to it, but even that would be a long way off, and might never happen.

So my stance on this issue is that animal research is needed and bc of that so is animal welfare research so that we can better understand how to meet the needs and improve the lives of research animals where possible. I basically think that as long as we're using live animals in our studies then we must treat them in a humane manner and allow them as much natural behavior as possible in the constraints of the study.

Faerylore:

I appreciate conversing with you on this subject.

I do agree, testing the nutritional values of food using parrots is likely a good way of testing. Since I don't have a degree in anything, I'm barely in college now, I can't suggest any alternatives except this: in order to create more jobs that we always need, why not hire scientists to figure out alternatives? I think that is a simple suggestion, with maybe a not so simple answer, but I DO believe it is because a whole lot of this nation just doesn't give a shit about animals.

Sure, we say we do, like my grandma. Then when I told her I spent $500 on a surgery for my sick ferret, she said "Don't get me wrong I love animals, but I would've shot him." ummm ok grandma..

I do realize that a lot of people don't equate animals with actual living things, but they are, and they deserve to be taken care of, not exploited. And while my examples may not represent animal testing in its entirety, i do believe it is a significant portion that needs to be reconciled with. Also, thank you for treating your animals with respect. It's very appreciated.

Also, maybe eventually animal testing WONT be needed. Maybe we can study parrots in the wild to see what they eat (I'm going to get a degree in ornithology, maybe I'll be doing that one day!!) or test bath soap on humans instead of animals. willing humans.

Anyway, faerylore, I appreciate you sharing your views and being respectful. I like to talk about these things without flat out arguing :)

PamelaV, don't you dare denounce my knowledge on this topic. I don't know who you think you are, or what you thought you were reading but not ONCE did I say all animal rights people were terrorists. That would be incredibly hypocritical of me since I am one myself. I said PETA are terrorists, and that is a statement I will stand by until I die.

Here's a little vocab lesson for you:

terrorism: [noun] the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear

Unfortunately, I no longer have a link to back up what I am about to say, but believe me that it's true. A woman owned an animal shelter that catered to sled and working dogs. She took in abandoned and abused animals, rehabilitated them and found them homes and work. She was terrorized by PETA because they felt that her training dogs to work was inhumane. She received several threatening letters, then belligerent phone messages, then finally she was vandalized. The kennels were smashed, her car was beaten, and violent and offensive statements were spray-painted all over the buildings. And they identified themselves as PETA throughout this. If that's not terrorism, nothing is.

In 2005 PETA killed 90% of the animals that they took in (www.petakillsanimals.com). Having worked in an animal shelter, I can tell you that nowhere near that number gets euthanized elsewhere, and the ones that do are put down for legitimate reasons (such as health and temperament). PETA seeks to end all domestication of animals because it's "cruel." There is nothing cruel about taking in an animal and giving it food, shelter, and love and ask for little more that affection in return. I really don't think anyone here could say that Jessica's pictures of Monty are an indication of his suffering.

So really, one small exaggeration between blood and paint that is deliberately chosen to represent blood and you're going to hop on a high horse and act like I don't know my shit? I don't think so.

And I can't believe you actually made the link between a group that commits regular actions that do or can hurt people and animals and the Boston Tea Party, which was in reality a staged pseudo-event to attract media to their cause. The difference is that there is no way throwing tea would kill anyone. Seriously, I am laughing so hard at that. You must be exhausted from making such an incredible leap. I hope you wore good shoes. hahaha

FAERYLORE-
Thank you for debating in a respectful manner and not sinking as low as other people on this thread. I really (genuinely) do appreciate your input on this topic.

The animal testing thing is something that conflicts me every day, as a person who has had a chronic health problem since a very young age. I would never say that a mother shouldn't get medical help for her child, or that someone should turn away life-saving medicine because it was tested on animals. I feel it really is survival at that point. I just don't feel that animals should be viewed as expendable and that due to grant money, the status quo, etc. people aren't really making the effort to change and look for more ethical ways of testing things. I am absolutely NOT anti-human medicine. I don't think a reasonable person can say "No, you can't put your kid on chemo if she has cancer". I just wanted to reiterate that. No one accused me of this, I just think that people see it as "either we test this on animals, or you hate kids". It's not like that.
As far as non-medicine goes...there is absolutely no excuse for animal testing things like mascara and soap. The laws don't even require it! Hopefully everyone on this board realizes that and will do their part to boycott companies like Cover Girl, Proctor and Gamble, etc.

LIZA-
I would be happy to address your reply (actually I agree with you on a lot of it) when you can address me as an actual human being.

Kmari1222, I would so sign up on that wild parrot observational study with you!

PamelaV, I agree with you on the makeup, soap, etc animal research. My basis on animal research has always been on whether or not it is needed and if there was a way to provide meaningful research without using the animals.

Another thing ppl sometimes miss when they talk about using animals in drug research is that the animals (as a species) definitely benefit just as much as people do and they usually benefit before people (as with ppl there are still human trials to do). We wouldn't have any of the medications in vet medicine that we have, if they hadn't been tested on animals at some point. You can get chemo for your dog or cat as well as your child, and I think that they all deserve it (even if expense can and certainly does get in the way for vet med). The examples are endless, from insulin to arthritis meds, etc.

There is also non-medical research that is valid as well (though a lot of it will hopefully benefit medicine somewhere down the line). Nutrition for example is very difficult to study without animals, but what we learn improves both human and other animal lives.

In the end, I think that the research should serve the animal's needs (at least at the species level) as well as human needs. And there is also definitely research designed mainly to benefit animal lives (even if it’s because we’re keeping them in captivity). That's one of the issues I have with makeup, lotion, etc. It serves a (dubious) purpose for people, but gives nothing back to the animals (again as a species) that were sacrificed for it.

I also agree that animals shouldn't be viewed as expendable. In my field, most ppl (myself included) get involved because we love animals, and want to make an (improving) difference in their lives. I think that with a lot of research, there just isn’t any sort of valid alternative right now. Esp with stem cell research being put on hold by the government. Doing research with animals is extremely expensive, for that reason if not for the ethical ones, if there was a valid and meaningful alternative for their research that didn’t involve animals, people would take it. Esp considering the amount of extra time and effort that lab animals require even when they’re not being actively used in a study. It’d be easier for everyone if we didn’t need animals in research, but that hasn’t happened yet. But I agree that that is not an excuse for treating animals inhumanely or for denying them as natural an environment as possible.

"Another thing ppl sometimes miss when they talk about using animals in drug research is that the animals (as a species) definitely benefit just as much as people do and they usually benefit before people (as with ppl there are still human trials to do)."

Indeed. Several years ago the Boston Globe ran an article about a case of misuse/abuse of animal testing at Tufts Veterinary School. Some readers wrote letters to the editor complaining about that animal testing because it's not 100% applicable to human medicine. o_O

Up here in Canada, PETA posted ads in British Columbia after BC pig farmer Robert Pickton was arrested for killing at least 26 women, and probably as many as 49, and quite possibly feeding them to his pigs. The PETA ads showed a picture of a pig's face and a woman's face with the line, "Neither of us is meat." I think that was probably the most offensive PETA campaign I've ever heard of. I really have no idea what train of thought leads an organization to chastise a community that has lost their loved ones for eating meat, but I'd really rather not follow it.
Here's a decent editorial on the ads.

Oh indeed, Mina!

God forbid a school of veterinary medicine conduct research where the primary interest is contributing to veterinary medicine! And how short-sighted of them to think that whatever the researchers learned would never cross over and benefit human medicine either. But I suppose that is part of the many joys otherwise known as 'letters to the editor'.

Rufus, how amazing to find PETA displaying an absolute lack of compassion… Sadly, almost nothing amazes me anymore when it comes to how they display their (specifically PETA but also ALF) warped viewpoint.

"I honestly do think "terrorism" depends which side you are on."

Indeed. We have no problem calling pro-life organizations and their most extreme supporters terrorists*. Quite frankly, now that I am reading, by their own admissions, by their own public threats, I believe that ALF and other extremists are even worse and more dangerous (except they have apparently not killed anyone yet, by simple technicality).

* "I don't think you'd have to kill -- assassinate -- too many . . . I think for 5 lives, 10 lives, 15 human lives, we could save a million, 2 million or 10 million nonhuman lives."
-Jerry Vlasak, founder and spokesperson of the North American Animal Liberation Front

Does this quote by Vlasak, given BEFORE THE US SENATE, sound familiar? Does he sound like anyone known to feminist or pro-choice organizations? He sounds exactly like a right to life leader talking about killing "abortion doctors." Are organizations like his, terrorist, or not?

Site: "It has been estimated that in the past decade, ALF supporters have committed well over 700 criminal acts and caused more than $100 million in damage. Every year in the United States, the number of incidents attributed to ALF increase in size and cost."

I am surprised publicly outspoken, hate speech, death threat dripping leaders such as Dr. Vlasak who do not tone down their rhetoric for 60 Minutes or before the US Senate, are not in jail. Others operate anonymously and autonomously, apparently specifically to avoid arrest or implication of the larger organization. Very clever. Also like the most extreme pro-life supporters.

"Maybe ALF believes torturing lab animals is terrorism against animals."

I am sure millions would agree. However, millions would also never consider doing what ALF and other extremists do, by their own admission and proudly proclaimed on their websites. I certainly know by being in church that any pro-lifers I know would not feel like proud ALF supporters about terrorism committed in their name. At church, they sing, they pray. They donate money, they vote. They aren't the ones putting out death threats, committing vandalism, planting bombs, and setting homes and businesses on fire. If pro-lifers behaved like animal rights extremists, or even the single organization ALF, a lot more clinics would probably be closed down.

"I am not a member of ALF, I am a member of a local AR group who uses education and our own very limited resources to help animals in our community. Violence isn't an option for us."

That is the way it should be. I fail to understand why pro-lifers or these animal rights extremists cannot be like your group or feminists who seek to change minds through education, not intimidation or terror.

"I am just tired of everyone lumping all AR people into the "terrorist" category. I should have made myself more clear."

Now that I know about

http://www.animalliberationpressoffice.org/

and all their linked sites and their own lists of hundreds of proud achievements, labeled and acknowledged as = ARSON = LIBERATION = PICTURES = PRISONER = SABOTAGE = VANDALISM = VIDEO, at

http://www.directaction.info/

educated readers should know who responsibility really lies with. ALF and others.

Seen at vandalized pet shop, left by apparently first time activists: "We are a small group of vegetarians, we love and respect life, nature, animals and admire everything thats being done by ALF all over the world in the name of animal's freedom."

If I ever saw something like this, or anything "really" put out by ALF, as seen on their own press site, put up near my home or place of work, I'd be happy to carry a gun (illegally) to use on them if I saw them. Strangely enough, I do not consider it necessary to protect myself against pro-lifers.

From "Who's Afraid of Jerry Vlasak?" [co-founder and spokesperson of NAALPO, the North American Animal Liberation Press Office], by Steve Best, Ph.D:

http://www.animalliberationpressoffice.org/Writings_Speeches/whos_afraid_of_jerry_vlasak.html

[start quote]

Justifications for Violence

Vlasak has defended the use of violence on two grounds. On moral grounds, he believes that any tactics – ranging from threats and break-ins to sabotage and even assault or murder --- are legitimate given the suffering exploiters inflict on animals, the impossibility of ending their misery through legal systems that cater to exploitation industries and define animals as property, and the moral imperative to save animals from the violent clutches of exploiters. On pragmatic grounds, Vlasak believes that the use of violence would be an effective intimidation tactic and would stop numerous individuals from exploiting animals while preventing others from ever embarking on that heinous path.

[omission]

Similarly, when Vlasak urges animal liberation by any means necessary, he is asserting the right of animals to self defense. But since they cannot defend themselves (except for instances such as where elephants or tigers justly kill their trainers), humans must act on their behalf. And if violence is needed to save an animal from attack, then violence is legitimate as a means of self defense for animals. If one likes, this could be called extensional self defense , since humans are acting on behalf of animals who are so vulnerable and oppressed they cannot fight back to attack or kill their oppressors.

[end quote]

For the love of Mike. Can anyone really not see what Vlasak, and any group (such as ALF) that he supports are ideologically no different from the most extreme of the pro-lifers? Their own words: "Any tactics – ranging from threats and break-ins to sabotage and even assault or murder" for their cause are justifiable, acting on animals' behalf because the poor defenseless animals (just like fetuses) cannot "fight back to attack or kill their oppressors?" If pro-lifers were spouting this crap on 60 Minutes or before the US Senate, Pamela, I do not believe you would have any trouble condemning pro-lifers with a broad brush.

Seriously. I am not afraid of pro-lifers. For guys like this, I'd carry a gun (illegally), and have eyes on the back of my head.

"Esp with stem cell research being put on hold by the government."

Restricting and banning stem cell research is also BS. Those cells and embryos are already someone else's hazardous biological waste, not their baby. Why not learn how they operate, and how they can help the rest of us?

Crap. I thought I was so clever for making the connection. Vlasak makes the connection himself!

THEY ARE NO DIFFERENT FROM THE ABORTION CLINIC BOMBERS, AND ADMIRE THEM

Pamela: Any else about what you "think" about ALF, or "do not necessarily agree with" their actions? Any else to add? A ten minute read can uncover all I need to form an opinion, from the organizations' own mouths. They and anyone like them are TERRORISTS. Vlasik has been banned from the UK for such hate speech, for good reason. He is inciting crime.

http://www.activistcash.com/biography.cfm/bid/3437

[start quote]

Vlasak told the “Animal Rights 2003� convention that he would endorse the murder of physicians whose research work requires the use of lab rats and other animals.

“I don’t think you’d have to kill -- assassinate -- too many vivisectors,� Vlasak said, “before you would see a marked decrease in the amount of vivisection going on. And I think for 5 lives, 10 lives, 15 human lives, we could save a million, 2 million, 10 million non-human lives.� When one woman in the audience disagreed, saying that Vlasak’s approach was no different from that of abortion-clinic bombers, Vlasak was undeterred. “Absolutely,� he countered. “I think they had a great strategy going.�

[end quote]

I got into an argument with a friend of mine about why exactly real dolls, blow up dolls, and this banner were offensive. He thought it was witty, and even after I tried to explain that all of this objectifies women, he didn't understand.

Can someone help me explain specifically or relatively eloquently what the problem is with these dolls and the banner? I expect I am just having trouble being coherent.

Something that no one else has mentioned so far - it seems to me that PETA's position on pets / assistive animals is ableist.

Tell me, PamelaV, if you had a child that was blind or paraplegic, etc, would you deny him/her an assistive animal because of your principles? Even if having an assistive animal might be the thing that allows your child to live independently? Would you, by force, take away your blind neighbor or friend's seeing-eye dog? Surely, you can't be supporting the consignment of disabled people to lives of dependence. Surely, you can't be ok with taking away the self-esteem of disabled people. Surely, you can't be supporting ALF when some day they murder a blind person in order to "save" their dog.

RachelPhilPa-

Your question has already been answered. Look in my previous posts regarding companion animals.

I am not Peta. I'm Pamela!
I have 5 happy companions.

Mali:

The joke is that "blows" can be used to mean "is something bad" or "is preforming a blow job". Having the sex doll sets up women as the fall guy for the joke so, when the less enlightened get the joke, they might think: "Ah, KFC blows just like a woman. Haha!" In the end, the punchline is either KFC is a corporate whore like women are or that women suck as much as KFC.

Maybe that'll be simple enough for him to grasp ;)

And as far as using meds that were tested on animals, its not hypocritical because there are no alternatives. If there were, then we would be using them.

*vegan*
---

The alternative would be NOT taking medication. (Like you do NOT eat meat.) I understand the next argument would be "But there are alternatives to meat" but I'm sure that makes it more valid. You only protest when you don't have to give up anything?

I don't disagree with your opinions or stances, I just think it's not quite true to say there is no alternative.

I'm late in the game after getting off-track early on in the commen