I was wondering what everyone thinks about PETA. When I first heard about PETA (many years ago), I thought it sounded like a great orginazation. The more I hear about it, though, the more skeptical I am. I agree with much of PETAs philosophy, but I'm not sure that they go about accomplishing their missions in the most productive way.

I have considered doing an internship at PETA, but I am now having second thoughts. What do ya'll think about PETA?

I like PETA. Sure some of the things they do are over the top, but in an apathetic world, you need to catch people's attention.
The fact remains that PETA is the largest animal rights organization in the world. They do make a difference. I think
interning is a great idea. You can help support the parts of PETA you like, and help to change the parts you don't like. :)

I hate PETA with an intensity in which I have never hated before!

;)

Well, maybe I don't hate them quite that much!

I call myself an animal lover, and naturally at first I thought PETA was great. It seems that our society has accustomed us to a point of not questioning anything that seems charitable, which makes it hard for me to shut down PETA because to those who know me it would seem to be in opposition of my pro animal views – but I don’t believe this is the case.

My biggest beef (not pun intended) with them is their advertising. At first I dismissed it as, ‘well if that’s what it takes to catch the publics interest’, but on a re-evaluation I was turning a blind eye. Does peta really have to objectify women (and yes a few men in certain campaigns) to get our attention? I think any organization which claims to be in the business of making a better world should wake up and smell disgraceful [hetero]sexism in their message of ‘peace’. It’s my belief that any liberational movement should be aware of other movements with like mindedly virtuous goals (e.g. feminism!.. or even eco-feminism if you will). Not only is it disrespectful of the human animal and appealing to the lowest demeanor it’s also creating a joke and hint of pathetic desperation to a supposedly just cause.

I also think as the largest group they are a little under achieving. I mean, I don’t know if it’s my place to set the standards high but for a multimillion dollar organization their feats don’t seem to be THAT significant and their campaigns not so innovative when it comes to solving problems. They simply throw stones as opposed to properly analyze situation and find out how to make compromises work with the people. Because so many of these problems come down to the issue of people who are not evil, just a product of the society which influenced them, just trying to make money- and hell that’s something PETA has why don’t they do something productive with it. They can boycott all they want but this is, in general, the least effective way of bringing down an organization… it’s just not progressive. I think they need to do more serious research and approach matters in a more intelligent manner.

I am not expert in all types of animal usage so I can only speak for what I know, but upon reviewing their ‘fact sheets’ they seemed less like any serious investigative reports and more like a collection of sixth graders essays. All their sources cited are from biased, often dated resources; which gives them little credibility. As a person whose house has always been filled with rescued animals (often ‘exotic’ animals and orphan injured wild animals) I have a decent amount of experience with their husbandry and their responses to various kinds of treatment and stimuli – when I read their fact sheets regarding companion animals, birds, exotic pets etc I was not impressed. Some of their ideas are going in the right direction (not all) but they just are not an authority on what they preach! All they do is regurgitate.

So basically I think PETA could clean up their act by taking soft core pornography out of their adds, being more effective with their millions (doing more then put forward largely ineffective boycott campaigns) as well as put a little more of their own unbiased research into their ‘investigations’ so they can properly comprehend all sides each issue. I think we as animal lovers we should be more skeptical of things and not just make assumptions because it works in our favor. But that’s just my two cents - Vanth

the fact is this it was sells to the general public, not long drawn out explanations of why something is bad. if you dont believe me check out election campaigns, beer commericals, perfume commercials, hell commercials and ads for just about anything. sex and insults are they way things get done in the US.

also businesses are in it for the money and dont forget it, if no one is watching them they would treat the animals much worse than they are now. they will only compromise if they have to and they have to when they stand to lose money from boycotts. asking them nicely isnt going to work. thats why boycotts happen, because asking nicely didnt work.

Ditto what Vanth said.

I think they make vegetarians look like jackasses.

Originally posted by majake
the fact is this it was sells to the general public, not long drawn out explanations of why something is bad. if you dont believe me check out election campaigns, beer commericals, perfume commercials, hell commercials and ads for just about anything. sex and insults are they way things get done in the US.

also businesses are in it for the money and dont forget it, if no one is watching them they would treat the animals much worse than they are now. they will only compromise if they have to and they have to when they stand to lose money from boycotts. asking them nicely isnt going to work. thats why boycotts happen, because asking nicely didnt work.

I agree completely with Majake's statements.

PETA advocates executing feral cats by lethal injection. Don't believe me? Do a search for "feral cats" on their website. They're rather selective in the animals they advocate on behalf of.
Peace,
Maggie

I can vouch for that, I've seen it, even e-mailed them about it and received the same type of answer.

Wow and I thought being so cute cuddly cats would be on their list of protection worthy animals, for their marketable warm fuzziness and public appeal.

And majake, sex may sell beer and meat for that matter (not to say using sex too sell either of those ethical one way or the other) but do you really think it sells non-mainstream ideals and lifestyle philosophies? Get real. Getting someone to look twice as they pass a billboard on the freeway may be the wonders of showing a little T&A in your marketing campaign because when each person takes that second glance they may see the beer that model is holding or the brand name in the bottom right corner, consciously or unconsciously implanting that association in the consumer's mind. I mean, it takes half a moron to buy a different brew of beer at the liquor store instead of his usual but it takes dedication to adopt veg*nism for life (they are probably just too socially cautious to challenge traditional western ideals- that’s why this sort of crap appeals to them in the first place!). Idiots sold by that kind of marketing are not the potentials to go out of their way and pick a more difficult lifestyle. they are sold on mainstream and they will most likely remain mainstream. I think PETA’s adds are ineffective because they repel the more intelligent, ‘do gooder’ market that would make the most promising potential veg*ns, the ones who are offended by these kinds of low blows (yes, I know many, they do exist and they hate peta). I think it would be wiser for PETA to get this market first, therefore making vegetarianism more mainstream and therefore winning over the more inactive persons who would rather go with the flow.

Originally posted by Vanth
...I mean, it takes half a moron to buy a different brew of beer at the liquor store instead of his usual but it takes dedication to adopt veg*nism for life (they are probably just too socially cautious to challenge traditional western ideals- that’s why this sort of crap appeals to them in the first place!). Idiots sold by that kind of marketing are not the potentials to go out of their way and pick a more difficult lifestyle. they are sold on mainstream and they will most likely remain mainstream.
Or jump the veg bandwagon until it requires them to give up something they like. *ahem* Drew Barrymore, I'm looking in your direction.

PETA's campaign tactics do sell- to the media. But they are not selling ideas, but the name brand, PETA.

Like Thalia said, its all name brand recognition. Sex sells the PETA name the PETA name brings in people to the website. The websites brings in more members and is the spring board for meat people to become vegs. Ask the veg*ns on this board how many decided to research their lifestyle a little more indepth because of the PETA website. Im sure you will find that many had, I did.

Originally posted by Marumm
I think they make vegetarians look like jackasses.

exactly. i can't think of another organization that i agree with, in principle, and still hate as much as i do PETA. they do vegetarians a disservice, imo.

yep i got started with PETA magazines. i was lent 2 magazines, by the time i was finished reading the second one the same day, i never wanted to touch meat again. unfortunately i read them while waiting for an order of chinese food, mainly meat, by the time the food was ready, i didn't want to eat it anymore. i did, but all the while looking at it, picking it apart, thinking "this was an animal. and this is how it lived and died. i don't need to eat this" and that was my last omni meal. i think that night or the next day i went and checked out the website for information on how to eat healthy as a vegan, how to make the transition, how to plan meals etc.

and now i'm starting a magazine myself, about animal wellfare and humane living, i'm healthier than i ever was, i have a huge box full of information and veg magazines in the middle of my livingroom floor. yup PETA pretty much changed my life. so yeah a few of their tactics go a little overboard, but overall i like them, and totally support them. sorry if that makes me a hypocrite or politically incorrect or whatever else, but it's the way it is, if i hadn't been given those magazines i'd probably still be poisoning myself with meat right now

That's interesting. I have been wondering if PETA's marketing tactics help create long term veg*ns or if they just produce short termers who soon moved on to the next thing. How many people here were influenced by PETA in any way?

I didn't check out PETA until a while into the game, so I'm not sure if they had any effect on me or not. I do check out their website monthly or so to find out what their arguments are (many good, many bad, I think).

As for me, I like some of what they do, and dislike others. If the group really does help create veg*ns, then that's great. But I also have to hear about their shenanigans from people I know who automatically lump me in with them. So the jury's still out. They definitely do a good job of appealing to kids--PETA really knows how to run with an emotional appeal.

And, as was pointed out here a year or so ago, they are pro-violence which doesn't sit well with me.

PETA makes animal rights activists look crazy.
The way they present their information is misleading.
Their referencing is akin to something you'd expect from a grade six student.
Their advertising is blantantly sexist.
I also heard that they support the actions of ALF- which, if true, is disgusting.

PeTA does some good things and some bad things.

I had never heard of PeTA until well after I had become a vegetarian.

The bad things that PeTA does outweigh the good in terms of my even thinking of joining them or sending them any of my money.

However, they have contacted me and I have cooperated with them on particular projects that I considered worthwhile and constructive.

Much of their approach involves sexuality in such a way that (in my opinion) a reasonable woman could easily find it sexist and offensive. Since it would probably offend a majority of women, and since the majority of members of my EarthSave chapter are women, I just don't see any benefit to my group in any closer affiliation with PeTA, and no one in my group has asked for or suggested any such thing. While I could be wrong, I don't think you will find PeTA mentioned, referred to, or linked to on my chapter's website. (And that is quite deliberate--not due to an oversight.)

Let me list some of the articles that have influenced me in deciding to keep PeTA at arms length. This doesn't mean that I necessarily agree 100 percent with what is written, but that I consider it a reasonable viewpoint (like an "op-ed" article).

And yes, I may well have been influenced by the fact that Carol Adams spoke at our November 2000 EarthSave Nashville meeting, and I had the opportunity to meet her and talk with her. She made a positive impression on me as someone intelligent and caring who also had common sense--someone who had ideas but was not an ideologue.

PETA and a Pornographic Culture, II
A Feminist Analysis of "I'd rather go naked than wear fur"
by Carol Adams
http://www.farinc.org/newsletter/v8_n3-4_94/petaporn2.html

PETA and a Pornographic Culture, I
A Feminist Analysis of "I'd rather go naked than wear fur"
by Cathleen and Colleen McGuire
http://www.farinc.org/newsletter/v8_n3-4_94/petaporn1.html

Fur and the Homeless
by Carol Adams
http://www.montelis.com/satya/backissues/feb98/homeless.html

Maybe this isn't directly on topic, but here goes.

I always thought that the acronym was pronounced "PEE-tuh," like pita bread or pita pockets.

But then I noticed that in a lot of their graphics and such, they print the word so it looks like it has a small "e." PeTA rather than PETA. I did not immediately grasp the significance of this.

Then I had some visitors from Britain who had been involved with PeTA for a number of years there, and they pronounced it "Pet-tuh," as though it contained the word "pet."

Now, if this second pronunciation is correct, then it would make sense of the small "e" in "PeTA." It would also seem to link them to concern for pets, which would of course make them marketable among pet owners and pet lovers, even if ironically their policy positions would call for an (ultimate) end to pet ownership.

I think of it as Peetah, too. But then I have heard people call their supporters peta-philes which sounds like pedophile.

That's how I say it too but I've heard it both ways and considering the "e" stands for "ethical" it certainly could be the other way.

I wasn't particularly impressed with Carol Adams. She seemed nice enough, we had dinner with her when she spoke last year at a local college. The presentation she gave was basically a slide show, we could have gotten the same thing from a video, and I don't like when women stereotype men (as users, abusers, pigs, etc.), basically doing the same thing to men that they're accusing men of doing to women.

Originally posted by Michael
I wasn't particularly impressed with Carol Adams. She seemed nice enough, we had dinner with her when she spoke last year at a local college. The presentation she gave was basically a slide show, we could have gotten the same thing from a video, and I don't like when women stereotype men (as users, abusers, pigs, etc.), basically doing the same thing to men that they're accusing men of doing to women.

Different strokes for different folks.

I've heard of, but never seen, the slide show. Maybe if I had, I would have felt differently about her.

I hear that Andrea Dworkin and Katherine McKinnon do (inflammatory) slide shows, too, but I have never seen these, so I have no basis for comparison.

I think her criticisms of PeTA do make sense, even if a reasonable person could disagree, and even if the slide show she does is inappropriate for the reasons you cited.

Those were some interesting links on PeTA. I just finished reading a book by Carol Adams, and thought it was excellent. She seemed like she really knew what she was talking about. It's always different to meet people in person, though...

The whole pet thing bothers me. Do they really want to end pet ownership? If this is the case, you wouldn't know it from their literature which features page upon page of cute, fuzzy pets and their owners talking about how much they love them. For me, this is a huge weakness in the organization. I'm quite sure that the logical extension of their ideas would lead to an end to pet ownership, but I think they are afraid to admit this. They are unwilling to give up such a powerful emotional appeal (pets are fuzzy and cute and we want to help them so send us money).