«

»

Aug 22 2011

I’ve gotten, like, 17 emails about this and so am filing an Intent to Post

Rest easy, outraged blamer. I have indeed heard of the PETA porn site and will be dashing off the usual bromides and choir-preaches as soon as time permits. In the meantime feel free to compose your own and post it here. Back in a flash (and by “flash” I mean “day or two”).

123 comments

1 ping

  1. D.

    PETA porn site?

    Damn; I thought those poppy-seed bagels were a little stronger than normal…

  2. Anne

    It would be nice if this puts a mirror in the face of the pro-porn post-fem liberal hypocrite legions, but I won’t be holding my breath.

  3. Pinko Punko

    Perhaps the only surprise is that it has taken this long. Or should I say this shlong. KNOBS.

  4. stacey

    PP, you’re totally totally right.

    À la monde: has PETA ever given any response to their use of porny campaigns to embiggen their impact? I can’t remember.

  5. Frumious B.

    @stacey: pretty much the PETA response is “It embiggens our impact!”

    Anyhoo, WON’T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE FREE SPEECH!!??ELEVEN

  6. Pinko Punko

    Maybe they say they’ll investigate their campaigns but watch this video about KFC first.

    Maybe the PETA porno starts on a badly lit ultra fake Vegan restaurant set instead of a regular badly lit fake restaurant set. And the music goes bow-tofu-wow-wow instead of bow-chick-a-wow-wow.

    PETA’s marketing is even worse than my jokes.

  7. Mujerylegs

    PP, you are awesome. Go do stand-up.

    stacey, being hypocritical is a proven counter-productive activist strategy – https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/handle/10355/9676.

    But, it seems to me the efficacy of PETA’s methods is hard to measure because corporations are so good at responding to these campaigns – http://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/dspace/bitstream/1808/5701/1/STARV30A3.pdf.

  8. Debbie Notkin

    PETA is nowhere near so much a pro-animal group as it is a trolling group, going around trying to figure out who they can offend. I have long ago decided to ignore them.

  9. shopstewardess

    Every time I see shit like this, I think “surely this is the point at which everyone starts to notice that there is a problem here”.

    And every time I am wrong.

  10. Denise

    @ Stacey: In an interview in the Huffington Post, Lindsay Rajt sets all our minds at rest when she says “We are careful about what we do and wouldn’t use nudity or some of our flashier tactics if we didn’t know they worked”. So that’s OK then, because we wouldn’t want their tactics to be exploitative AND ineffective.

  11. awhirlinlondon

    Here is the link to Huffpo’s article on the subject: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/19/peta-porn-site_n_931509.html

    The intention is to intersperse pornulated images of pornulated women with photographs depicting animal suffering. I’m no psychiatrist, but can’t imagine that the result would be anything other than eroticizing the suffering of animals. Show photographs of women being displayed, abused, tortured, etc. that are meant to titillate, intersperse with photos of animals being abused, tortured or killed et voila. Animal torture becomes arousing.

    Granting that PETA loves using porn, they sure as hell aren’t doing it to point out the hideousness of pornography’s increasing eroticization of female suffering or degradation.

  12. Vinaigrette Girl

    I’ve just sent them an e-mail – pithy, succinct – telling them (a) what I think of them (no swearing or vulgarity, but “pimps” was the most polite word, I think, besides “and” and “the”) and (b) the ways in which I intend to campaign against their advertising.

    Sustainably and locally-sourced carne adovadas, anyone? I shall be the one in my grandmother’s fur coat, drinking a margarita, in sensible shoes made of leather.

  13. speedbudget

    awhirlinlondon, I had the same thought when I read about this site. I though, oh, great. Some dudes with a penchant for animal torture along with their rape are going to TOTALLY GET OFF on this site. How nice of PETA to think of the animal-torturing porn enthusiasts. Won’t someone think of them?

  14. Cootie Twoshoes

    Protesting PETA’s pornography by declaring a commitment to eating and wearing animals is missing the point completely. Our social order that uses and abuses women does the very same to animals, sometimes in similar ways. For blamers to flaunt the continued use of animals for human needs and desires is akin to arguments made by men about their need for porn.

    Awhirlinlondon, I think you are right about the eroticization of tortured animals.

  15. MezzoPiana

    Peta, oh ugh ugh and ugh.

    Eroticization of animal torture is horribly true – anyone who’s spent as much time as I have in online vegan spaces may well have heard of the porn phenomenon called ‘crush’ videos. Don’t google it, I implore you. A brief summary: sex-aay long-legged stilettoed female stamps small animals to death.

    Men are one fucked-up bunch.

  16. Lovepug

    There needs to be a special section in DSM IV for PETA higher-ups. Ingrid Whatshername is batshit crazy.

    Don’t bother contacting them. They won’t be listening. They don’t care. They are far too caught up in their delusions of grandeur. If you write or email them, they will simply interpret that as a sign of success. They have zero interest in opening up a dialogue with anybody about anything. They only want to strongarm people into listening to their fucked up world view. And they claim automatic moral superiority and credibility because they’re saving kittens and shit. Circular logic a-go-go.

    Donating some bags of food and old towels to your local shelter will do more towards helping animals than giving PETA one second of your time or one dime of your money.

    Ignore, ignore, ignore. That’s my strategy with PETA anymore.

  17. Killerchick

    Coincidentally, ‘péta’ is the third person singular, simple past conjugation of the verb ‘péter’, meaning ‘to fart’ in French.

    Every time I see those horrible, woman-hating PETA ads I think to myself ‘look what the patriarchy farted out this time’.

  18. AB

    @Stacey,

    I’m curious. Did you deliberately choose to designate the “world” as female in French by using “la”? Otherwise, it should be “Au monde” not “A la Monde”.

  19. Bushfire

    Some dudes with a penchant for animal torture along with their rape are going to TOTALLY GET OFF on this site

    That is precisely what’s going to happen. If you want to get people to help animals, target your advertising to people with consciences. Why target the pornsick psychotics? They don’t care about animals.

  20. Jay

    Does anyone have any evidence that an association between pornography and torture is more likely to turn men on to torture than it is turn men off to pornography? Yes, torture is often eroticised and some men dig it – but it doesn’t seem fair to say the progression is only one way unless, again, there is some evidence for such an imbalance.

    PETA is a utilitarian organization. They’re not blind to the exploitation of women, and they’ve read the books that discuss the relationships between the exploitation of women and that of non-human animals. For whatever reasons, they think it’s worth it. I encourage all of you to ask yourselves what you would sacrifice (or ask other women to sacrifice) if you knew you could make a difference in the lives of 1,000 or 10,000 other women. Would you stop recycling for a year? Drive a Hummer? Cut down a bunch of trees? How much of a hypocrite would you be, if the math worked out?

  21. Mujerylegs

    Lol, Killerchick! Thanks so much for “péta.”

    Would it serve or subvert the patriarchy if someone made a mock Péta website with animated fart + animal fart porn?

  22. ecorad

    Catharine MacKinnon has often argued that male sexuality is activated and expressed as violence against women, citing studies that show “normal” men who are repeatedly shown pornography quickly grow to be more aroused by scenes of sexual violence. MacKinnon says, “sexual material that is seen as nonviolent, by contrast, is less arousing to begin with and becomes progressively less arousing over time, after which exposure to sexual violence is sexually arousing.” Similarly, these “normal” men were also shown material that was violent but with no explicit sexual content. Their response, no big surprise here, was to “perceive the interaction to be sexual even if no sex is shown.”

    The threads of intersection and connection are firing in my brain right now but probably need more time before they are shared with the blametariat. For now, let’s just say that PETA is playing with fire, and we know who always gets burned.

  23. laxsoppa

    Jay – “PETA is a utilitarian organization. They’re not blind to the exploitation of women, and they’ve read the books that discuss the relationships between the exploitation of women and that of non-human animals.”

    So are a lot of big businesses and governments that continue their programmes and operations despite knowing the extent of the harm they inflict on other beings by doing so – human, animal, plant, ecosystem. You’ll have to do better than that to justify the exploitation of a whole class of people and playing into existing patriarchal, oppressive structures that also support the continued abuse of animals just to make a fucking point.

    There are environmental and animal rights organisations who, somehow, haven’t felt the need to resort to objectification and degradation of ANY class of people, not even women, to get their message heard. Does that make them less effective or valuable to their cause? How does one actually measure the success rate for such campaigns and is there any actual comparative data available on exploitational tactics vs. non-exploitative tactics in this context?

    “The ends justify the means” type of thinking leads down a slippery slope, and I don’t want to see any society go down there.

  24. yttik

    Jay, you totally lost me. If I thought it would make a difference in the lives of 1000 women, 10,000, would I stop recycling? Drive a hummer? You’re damned right I would.

    If PETA actually gave a crap about animals, they’d realize that the oppression and abuse of women is what animal cruelty stems from in the first place. It’s insane to not understand that oppressing half the human race really is the cause of all our social ills. You want to make change? Start there.

    “Does anyone have any evidence that an association between pornography and torture..”

    Yeah, we do have evidence. Go look it up.

  25. Le Chat Noir

    My strategy is to support OTHER animal rights organizations and starve PETA financially.

  26. laxsoppa

    Additionally, this whole thing reminds me of some campaign called Fuck For the Forest or something which consisted of a couple getting on a stage during a festival and fucking in order to raise awareness of the continued eradication of rainforests and the risks that implies for the global ecological balance.

    I got into an argument about it on HBI with someone who countered my argument (which was that this sort of campaigning would only cause trouble and be used to discredit the whole movement while raising about zero actual awareness of the actual issue) by calling me a prude and stating that since Marilyn Manson or some other shock rocker already did the sex on stage schtick (if only to shock instead of raise awareness of anything else than his dick), it was “nothing new” and should be just shrugged off or accepted into the discourse.

    I wasn’t eloquent or hip enough to the concept of patriarchy to argue further back then, but damn, am I seeing the same apologism about the commodification of sex and sexuality all over again. And it hurts particularly badly when it’s done by people who are doing it “for the greater good”. If it degrades the whole species, where is that greater good to be found in it?

  27. sjaustin

    Jay, it doesn’t seem fair? No, of course it’s not fair. Life isn’t fair, especially to women. If you meant to say that it doesn’t seem logical (which is more pertinent than fairness when one is ostensibly attempting to present something resembling a reasonable argument) then based on the evidence, you’re just plain wrong.

    As for the nonsense about hypocrisy and harming the environment to save women, you’re presenting it as though it has to be one or the other. And yes, if it had to be one or the other, I’d choose saving women over the environment. However, degrading women is not the only option PETA has. There are other ways to raise awareness and bring attention to the unethical treatment of animals.

  28. nails

    Aren’t they afraid of crossing the videos about the horrors of factory farming with material intended to induce boners?
    They might produce some creepy fetishists by associating animal torture with ejaculation.

    What bothers me about this so much is that you cannot have a worldview that champions the importance of animals without recognizing that humans are animals also. You would think that it would end with them having a certain level of consideration for people. Animal rights activists fight against the christian notion that god made us special so we could have dominion over all the animals on earth. They push the idea that we are all animals. They try to guilt you about how egg companies chuck the dude chicks into a wood chipper because they won’t make eggs, but they discount and exploit half of the human race (which is already bogged down by poverty and sexual violence all the damn time). I think these utilitarians miscalculated in a major fucking way.

  29. nails

    “My strategy is to support OTHER animal rights organizations and starve PETA financially.”

    Oh, if only that would work. Rich folks give tons to PETA. Even a bunch of celebrities. Giving money to other groups is good, it is a sign of integrity, but perhaps more could be done. I don’t understand why there isn’t a protest up at PETA headquarters (in Norfolk, VA) right now. This is bullshit. We should at least start a letter writing campaign. I’ll be blogging this soon.

  30. laxsoppa

    nails, I’m on board with the letter writing campaign though I can’t make it to protesting at the HQ. I’ll be watching your space!

  31. Lovepug

    @nails and laxsoppa: I feel you, but seriously, PETA loves nothing more than when people protest them. They are experts at turning any opposition to what they do around to make it look like they’re right. They are hoping, hoping, hoping for public outcry. That way the get what they want. I say fuck ‘em and let’s all ignore them.

    I have a nasty yelling match with a PETA person who called me a bitch in front of my then 6 year old daughter as evidence of their stop-at-nothing mentality. I also used to be a member of PETA years ago, and they’ve been pulling this shit forever. I tried AS A MEMBER to object to another misogynistic campaign from back in the day. They don’t give a rat’s ass if even their members complain about their tactics. I got a “if you’re not with us your against us” response for my trouble.

    Celebrities support them because most celebrities are dumbasses. Also, women like Pam Anderson are just hoping they’ll get an offer to pose in one of their “I’d rather go naked…” campaigns in a futile effort to restart their fading careers.

    PETA higher-ups are utter psychopaths and cannot be reasoned with.

    I’m all for Chat Noir’s tactic of starvation. In reality, they waste a lot of money as an organization, and they really are not all that effective. They’re slowly pissing more and more people off, and they will crumble eventually. Let’s just let them die a natural death.

  32. Fede

    Jay, I have a smashing idea for an awareness-raising campaign about the dangers of smoking: all it’ll take is for the message to be displayed along with footage of you getting gang-banged by the neo-Nazi inmates of cellblock O. You know – for the shock effect. You can save countless lives by catering to people’s lowliest, most atrocious appetites. You game?

  33. nails

    Ok I blogged it. Here is the link to tell them to stop it (I took the position that it is a stupid campaign because it DOESN’T WORK, I have a feeling that it will go over better than that tired old thing about the humanity of women being important)

    http://www.peta.org/about/contact-peta/email-form.aspx

  34. Anne

    Jay: “Does anyone have any evidence that an association between pornography and torture is more likely to turn men on to torture than it is turn men off to pornography?”

    Everything from Blood Feast to Hustler magazine to Saw VI/3d.

    Piling on, but damn what a stupid question.

  35. Puffin

    From PETA’s “About Us” section: “We formed PETA’s Marketing Department over the course of three years on the heels of the incredible success of our peta2 program. [...] [our marketing program] ensur[es] that our supporters come back to our Web sites, help fund our programs, spread the word, and become and stay active for animals. [...] Everything we do is tracked and analyzed to ensure that we’re as effective as we can possibly be.”

    http://www.peta.org/about/learn-about-peta/online-marketing.aspx

    I’ve been curious about PETA’s marketing ever since the “I’d Rather Go Naked…” campaign took off years and years ago. They are a non-profit advocacy organization but they do marketing like a slick for-profit, using the tactics companies use to sell stuff to 20-year-olds. They definitely focus on a niche community, and not the one that tends to be able to afford fur in the first place.

    It makes me wonder how they measure success – how many fur coat makers have gone out of business since that campaign? Or was success more about the incredible uptick in donation revenue to PETA that resulted? The number of 18-year-olds who signed up for their twitter feed?

    I also find Ingrid Newkirk fascinating. PETA seems as much a cult of personality around her and her weirdness as it is an animal advocacy organization.

  36. ew_nc

    Ever since PETA perpetuated visual violence on my own very young Rotel, I can’t find enough negative things to say about them. And they keep on supplying me ammunition.

    The only people who take PETA seriously are marketing firms and its own members. Not that it will stop men from getting off on their porn posters.

    And Jay? What the HELL are you talking about?

  37. sam

    When an estimated 12% of all websites are porn, the promise of PETAporn is not about actual intended viewership but the press release and resulting buzz.

    I’ve got sore eyeballs from trying to follow the logical contortions of SlutWalkers criticizing PETA before their summer’s pastie glue has lost its tackiness.

  38. speedbudget

    It’s so cute when the boys try to make their Rational Male Points in feminist spaces with a bunch of educated women raring to go. I’ll bite too.

    I encourage all of you to ask yourselves what you would sacrifice (or ask other women to sacrifice) if you knew you could make a difference in the lives of 1,000 or 10,000 other women. Would you stop recycling for a year? Drive a Hummer? Cut down a bunch of trees? How much of a hypocrite would you be, if the math worked out?

    I would sacrifice all of those things to make the life of even one woman better, and I wouldn’t be a hypocrite for doing so.

    The difference here, Jay, is that exploiting women is not something I would ever condone, and even if I could make the life of one woman better by doing it, I wouldn’t. Know why? Because I believe women are people, with all the rights and dignities thereto accorded. I don’t think women are people in the abstract, I don’t think it just so I can get in some chick’s pants. I really do believe that women are people, and as such, I would do whatever I could ASIDE FROM EXPLOITING ANOTHER HUMAN BEING in order to improve said woman’s life.

    You can tromp in here and make all your little hypothetical arguments and be all Rational Male on us and shit, but the truth is, we ARE women. We live it every day. And you getting all sanctimonious because you might have one less boner in your day is just pathetic. When it stop being hypothetical for you and starts being real, maybe we can have an intelligent conversation.

    PS – False equivalency is false, jackass.

  39. pheenobarbidoll

    Jesus jumped up Christ.

    I just received a Merle Norman make up flyer promoting their new collection. The name is The Hussy Collection.

    I shit you not.

  40. ew_nc

    The Hussy Collection? WTF?

    Add that to a news item I just saw that said that knob-of-all-knobs, Joe Francis, was arrested for taking two women to his house against their will. Before you rejoice that he was actually arrested, let me assure you that these were just misdemeanor charges. Kidnapping is just a misdemeanor when you’re a nationally known pornographer who films drunken women without their consent.

    The revolution can’t come soon enough for me.

  41. minervaK

    Ugh. I read that it will be porn intercut with images of animals being tortured. As if that will somehow put porn consumers off.

  42. vitaminC

    Woman-meat: it’s fair game.

  43. minervaK

    And. PETA advocates vegetarianism for cats, which is basically a death sentence for them — they are obligate carnivores, which means they cannot survive without meat. That’s all the proof I need that they are not an “animal rights” organization. I don’t even bother writing to them anymore. That just gives them the attention that is their raison de’etre.

    I know that contributing to other organizations won’t stop PETA, but I don’t give my extra (HAHAHahahahahaaaaaaaa) money to local feral cat orgs because I hate PETA. I give it to them because they need it and they’re doing a good thing.

  44. yttik

    So I guess it’s okay to rape women? Just don’t rape the environment, animals, the planet, because those things matter. We care about them. They’re important to us. Women, not so much. Women are simply inanimate objects to be used in advertising. Women are kind of like stepping stones you lay down in a river so you can walk across and get to More Important Things.

    Jay, your question, “what you would sacrifice (or ask other women to sacrifice..?” is boring and repetitive. It’s always means the same damn thing. We’ve been there and done that my entire life. Would you be a sexual commodity to end the war? Would you be a sexual commodity to save the environment? Would you be a sexual commodity to save the animals? Funny how women always have only one job description, no matter what the cause we’re “helping” or “sacrificing” for.

  45. vitaminC

    @Puffin

    “It makes me wonder how they measure success – how many fur coat makers have gone out of business since that campaign? Or was success more about the incredible uptick in donation revenue to PETA that resulted? The number of 18-year-olds who signed up for their twitter feed?”

    My thoughts exactly. If your organization is ostensibly non-profit, how do you quantify “success”? It almost has to be in dollars donated. I would give a very great deal to snoop in their books.

  46. Catherine Martell

    It’s a waste of time writing to PETA. They’re the ultimate troll. They thrive on your attention.

    Better: contact the celebrities who endorse them and explain the problem to them. Some of those who currently endorse PETA would probably cease to do so if they were made aware of the organisation’s new role as provider of pornography-mixed-with-animal-torture.

    While you’re at it, you might also want to remind them that PETA has in the past offended Holocaust survivors, among other groups, by comparing eating meat to the Nazi genocide; also that it has been repeatedly criticised for the same by the likes of the Anti-Defamation League; also that it has refused to distance itself from known terrorist organisations such as the Animal Liberation Front which have been linked to such charming activities as sending envelopes lined with razor blades to the children of research scientists and setting bombs.

    Oh, yeah: and it kills animals. PETA euthanises 96% of the pets handed in at its HQ. More than 20,000 in the last decade, according to its own records filed with the State of Virginia.

    PETA’s name should never be mentioned without someone also mentioning some of this stuff (and there’s plenty more). Not all publicity is good publicity, as they apparently believe. Show them. Hit them where it hurts. Which would be in their celebrity endorsements.

  47. AlienNumber

    I encourage all of you to ask yourselves what you would sacrifice (or ask other women to sacrifice) if you knew you could make a difference in the lives of 1,000 or 10,000 other women.

    What about You, Jay-the-paternalistic-knob, sacrifice watching porn? And encourage your animal-loving dude friends to do the same. That should make quite a difference, in the lives of countless women and other animals.
    And please stop posting here, it’s a dude-free zone.

  48. speedbudget

    I stopped giving PETA the time it takes to read their ads when they claimed that bee keepers kill their hives and exploit bees in order to get honey. As the owner of an apiary at the time, I knew it was utter bullshit, and it made me wonder just what other utter bullshit they were spewing.

  49. Mildred

    Say what you will about Slutwalk but I have been following a comment thread on facebook about Slutwalk in Winnipeg, Manitoba, and it has about 150 comments and counting. I haven’t seen a single campaign about rape culture or even feminism at all that has gotten as much attention or media attention as this. And I think its message is ultimately noble, albeit salacious. If we think of funfeminism as being all part of the feminist ecosystem, this is ultimately positive.

  50. Killerchick

    ‘Gratuitous violence, besides “proving” he’s a “Man,” serves as an outlet for his hate and, in addition – the male being capable only of sexual responses and needing very strong sexual stimuli to stimulate his half-dead self – provides him with a little sexual thrill’ – Valerie Solanas, SCUM Manifesto.

    I fart in the face of anyone who suggests the validity of sacrificing even a single woman’s safety, dignity, or humanity for some other ’cause’. As men are the ones obsessed with the nobility of these sacrifices let them sacrifice themselves/ each other.

    More Solanas: ‘The male likes death – it excites him sexually and, already dead inside, he wants to die’.

    Perfect solution.

  51. Killerchick

    PS – I realise it’s not Christmas and I’m therefore citing SCUM out of season.

  52. Gayle

    PETA shouldn’t objectify women thinking it will help animals as this strategy perpetuates the status quo thereby hurting the very animals they are trying to protect (as well as women, of course). The culture of domination/submission is at the heart of all oppression.

    The fact is, Catherine Martell, animals are oppressed- and so much worse. They are tortured and murdered and neglected regularly and without regard by human beings. Peta’s mantra: “A rat is a dog is a pig is a boy” is their philosophy and it’s why they compare the holocaust to the murder of animals. You can certainly disagree with them (most people do) but I believe we can condemn their exploitation of women without attacking the animal rights movement as a whole.

    The charges you leveled against PETA are promoted by industries invested in the continuation of animal suffering– circuses and fast food chains, for example. They’ve spent a boat load of money attempting to discredit all organizations devoted to more a humane treatment of animals (the ASPCA and the Humane Society and others ) and as someone who can’t abide the exploitation of women or animals, I don’t appreciate this smearing one bit.

  53. Kristine

    “Does anyone have any evidence that an association between pornography and torture is more likely to turn men on to torture than it is turn men off to pornography?”

    You mean to tell me you’ve never taken a Psychology 101 course? It’s called Pavlovian conditioning, dude. It’s one of the most widely accepted theories in general psychology. In fact, it’s almost entirely undisputed. Even the sexist university knobs understand that. Go educate yourself. Learn to empathize with the suffering of female human beings. And stop wasting our time.

  54. Kristine

    Oh, and Gayle? We aren’t smearing PETA. PETA is smearing itself for the publicity.

  55. sjaustin

    Gayle, nobody here is “attacking the animal rights movement as a whole.” As for the charges leveled against PETA, are you disputing them? Are you saying it’s not true that they kill the majority of animals that are surrendered to them? Are you saying it’s not true that they advocate vegetarian diets for cats? What exactly is your point here?

  56. AlienNumber

    Pornography IS torture, let’s not get distracted here.

  57. stacey

    Couldn’t help myself:

    Also, way back @AB, I used the feminine for “monde” because I guessed. :D My french is très rusty!

  58. stacey

    Urgh. Forgot about the image thing. Here’s a direct link to my Jay bingo cards: http://g.virbcdn.com/_f/files/d1/FileItem-113176-jaybingo1.jpg

  59. Jezebella

    Cootie Twoshoes, thank you for this: “Protesting PETA’s pornography by declaring a commitment to eating and wearing animals is missing the point completely.”

    Animal rights activism isn’t the problem. PETA is the problem.

  60. Treefinger

    Cats don’t quickly die when fed a vegetarian diet, by and large (though more unknown is how their health for their remaining lives may be adversely affected). I’m hardly an expert on the subject but IIRC people who feed their cats vegan diets get food with supplements (and ingredients that aid the digestion of them). Plus, PETA is hardly the only organization that promotes vegan/vegetarian pet food, as it’s becoming quite a widespread thing in other animal rights groups, including those which explicitly shun PETA for being sexist, racist, etc. There are a few extreme advocates who argue animals are capable of being “moral beings”, but regardless of what you think of that, those people are generally anti-PETA.

    I feed my cat meat and have next to no opinion on the phenomena of veg* pets, but that’s what I got on the subject in my memory bank.

    Also, because I only ever comment here when I have something to say that isn’t already being said, I probably look like some sort of whiny dissenter. Let it be known that my silence means “well said, everyone”.

  61. Carpenter

    I’ll be damned, PETA does advocate vegetarianism for cats. Isn’t that metabolically impossible?

  62. MezzoPiana

    Re raising cats on plant-based diets, there are in fact plenty of people who claim success at doing just this – even claiming that, far from being a ‘death sentence’, in fact superior health often results. Just like humans, there is no nutritional need for ‘meat’ per se but rather the nutrients that a species has evolved to require, in the correct balance and in a form digestible to that animal’s physiology. Thus, in theory it can be done for any animal (there was even once a freak voluntarily vegetarian lion who enjoyed apparently excellent health) if one is careful to ensure those species-specific conditions are met. For cats specifically, if memory serves taurine in meat is a crucial micronutrient but since it can be supplemented there should in theory be no problem. There is also the added point that any cat allowed to roam free will likely hunt in any case and possibly supplement their provided diets (whether plant-based or not!) that way. I haven’t so far seen many vegans seriously advocating that we must at all costs prevent cats from exercising that instinct.

    It seems rather odd to make the blanket claim that raising evolutionarily carnivorous animals on a carefully balanced plant diet is necessarily abusive if there is evidence to show that health is unharmed or even improved.

  63. MezzoPiana

    Another hear hear from me for Cootie Twoshoes’s “Protesting PETA’s pornography by declaring a commitment to eating and wearing animals is missing the point completely.”

    And one for Jezebella “Animal rights activism isn’t the problem. PETA is the problem.” Even besides the gratuitous exploitation of women, which is utterly revolting but let’s face it no worse than in the rest of the world, the fuckers at PETA are ruining it so very badly for the rest of the animal rights crowd – they’re probably setting us back decades, if not centuries. There’s a parallel here with the co-opting of feminism by fun/libfems, if you ask me.

  64. shopstewardess

    Gayle says “Peta’s mantra: “A rat is a dog is a pig is a boy” is their philosophy.”

    So that started me wondering where in this patriarchal list Peta would put a girl. My first conclusion is that “girl” can’t have the same worth as “boy”, because then the text would have used the gender-neutral “child”, rather than the specifically masculine “boy”.

    “Pig” and “rat” are gender-neutral terms for the species. “Dog” is both male gender and the default for the species. So there is nothing in those words to say whether girls count at any of these levels. That means that, looking at the phrase in isolation, girls could be 1) off the top of the scale, above boys, 2) somewhere in the scale below boys, or 3) below the scale.

    The context in which the phrase is used determines which of these is correct. The context tells us that Peta routinely serves women’s bodies up on a platter to further the cause of the rat. So it is clear that, looking at the phrase contextually, women, and by extension girls, are off the bottom of the scale entirely. Lower than a rat, then.

    Gayle, the patriarchy-supporting Peta isn’t worth a moment more of your efforts on their behalf. You need to find a better way to support your chosen cause, keeping in mind that you will never succeed in liberating animals as long as oppression against women continues.

  65. Bushfire

    I’ve got sore eyeballs from trying to follow the logical contortions of SlutWalkers criticizing PETA before their summer’s pastie glue has lost its tackiness.

    Slutwalk does not equal PETA. One is a global march against victim-blaming, and one is tacky, blatant woman-hating.

  66. laxsoppa

    MezzoPiana – “Re raising cats on plant-based diets, there are in fact plenty of people who claim success at doing just this – even claiming that, far from being a ‘death sentence’, in fact superior health often results. Just like humans, there is no nutritional need for ‘meat’ per se but rather the nutrients that a species has evolved to require, in the correct balance and in a form digestible to that animal’s physiology.”

    and

    “It seems rather odd to make the blanket claim that raising evolutionarily carnivorous animals on a carefully balanced plant diet is necessarily abusive if there is evidence to show that health is unharmed or even improved.”

    I don’t know about the rest of the blametariat, but I’d definitely like to see the evidence that supports the claims re: putting cats on a vegan/vegetarian diet. Vague references to healthy vegetarian lions without any sources cited aren’t enough.

    Also, cats supplementing their human-dictated diet while roaming free is way beside the point. We were talking about the diets HUMANS put their pets on, and in towns and cities free roaming is just not possible, plus letting your cat do that is pretty irresponsible and bordering on negligent in ANY environment.

  67. geogeek

    As far as cats roaming in cities, most people let their cats out during the day, and they kill a lot of birds (ref. below).

    Landowners and cat predation across rural-to-urban landscapes. Christopher A. Lepczyk, Angela G. Mertigb, and Jianguo Liua. Biological Conservation, Volume 115, Issue 2, February 2004, Pages 191-201

    “Across the three landscapes there were ~800 to ~3100 cats, which kill between ~16,000 and ~47,000 birds during the breeding season… While the number and density (no./ha) of free-ranging cats per landowner differed across the rural to urban landscapes, depredation rates were similar.”

  68. Lovepug

    Any cat I’ve ever had, if I put said cat on a vegetarian diet, would promptly go out and knock off a few birds or mice out of desperation. That’s cats.

    You can support animal rights without giving PETA one thin dime. They are ineffective. That Ringling Brothers seeks to discredit them is irrelevent. Support local animal shelters. Money better spent. If you simply must support a large organization, I think Jane Goodall’s outfit is a pretty lean organization. They focus more on wildlife, and are pretty hardcore animal rights, but they’re not crazy like PETA.

    Our behavior towards animals and the personal choices we make have a farther reaching effect on animal welfare than giving Ingrid Newkirk another reason to believe she’s god.

    Kudos to the idea of contacting the celebrities who support PETA. Though it may mean going over to the dark side and having to contact Perez Hilton. He’s a huge supporter. Shudder.

    As far as PETA’s effectiveness, don’t ask me how I know this, but fur is actually coming back to fashion. It’s popularity is increasing in recent years. Some designers have decided to fly a big finger to the anti-fur protests and use fur anyway. So much for the so-called success of their anti-fur campaign which until they jumped on the vegan bandwagon used to be PETA’s flagship cause.

    PETA does not help animals. They exists soley to pad the egos of the power players within the organization.

    And don’t get me started about ALF. When I dropped out of the animal rights activism many years ago, PETA’s shenanigans were a contributing factor, but ALF was the final straw for me. Fucking terrorists. And not even good ones. They often botched their jobs and ended up killing the animals they were trying to save.

  69. laxsoppa

    geogeek, thanks, I stand corrected on roaming free in the city.

  70. lizor

    The book “The Brain That Changes Itself” by pioneer brain plasticity researcher Norman Doidge has a very interesting chapter on the birth of PETA through the actions of co-founder Wayne Pacelle. Also a very interesting [scary] chapter on pornography’s effect on the brain.

  71. Soporificat

    If anyone wants to read a bit about Ingrid Newkirk’s other activities, this is an interesting link:
    http://www.nokillnow.com/PETAIngridNewkirkResign.htm

    I can’t quite figure out what Ingrid Newkirk stands for, other than for Ingrid Newkirk’s awesomeness. I have a strong feeling that she likes to dominate others.

  72. Sigh

    Reference regarding vegetarian cats: http://www.vegepets.info/assets/Vegetarian%20Cat%20Study%20Wakefield%20et%20al%202006%20JAVMA.pdf

    Upshot: appropriately planned vegetarian diets are fine for cats.

  73. pheenobarbidoll

    “It seems rather odd to make the blanket claim that raising evolutionarily carnivorous animals on a carefully balanced plant diet is necessarily abusive if there is evidence to show that health is unharmed or even improved.”

    The cat knows what it should be eating. Try respecting the cat, instead of supporting the P invented ” humans know better”.

  74. Josquin

    Shopstewardess: very interesting comment. That “rat-pig-boy” analogy always rankled me a bit, and now I know why. Using “boy” instead of “girl” or “child” was a way of upping the ante as to the value of the human child, I suppose, in the marketing minds of PETA. I am fairly radical in my view of animal rights, and was a defender of PETA for a long time, thinking that the ends justify the means, etc. But, no longer. The bad taste of their degradation of women has permanently gutted their radical stance on animal rights.

  75. Jill

    Put on the floor a plate of spinach and a plate of salmon. Place a cat at a point equidistant from the two plates. What are your predictions?

    What if it were a plate of peas and a live mouse?

  76. Lidon

    As far as PETA’s effectiveness, don’t ask me how I know this, but fur is actually coming back to fashion. It’s popularity is increasing in recent years. Some designers have decided to fly a big finger to the anti-fur protests and use fur anyway. So much for the so-called success of their anti-fur campaign which until they jumped on the vegan bandwagon used to be PETA’s flagship cause.

    Big surprise. PETA profits off of sex (i.e., female body parts) and violence just like everybody else. The only difference is their guise.

  77. pheenobarbidoll

    “What if it were a plate of peas and a live mouse?”

    I have a cat that would pick white chocolate over the live mouse, salmon or anything else you could fit on another plate.

    I wouldn’t blame any cat picking a mouse over peas. Unless they’re black eyed peas, I’D probably pick the mouse.

  78. yttik

    “Try respecting the cat…”

    There’s a novel idea! We do a lot of harm projecting our own issues onto animals and not respecting them for what they already are.

    I have a friend who can kill my dogs with kindness in about an hour and leave them neurotic messes, chasing their tails and peeing on the floor. She thinks she’s being affectionate, but they read it as, “this woman is flipping nuts and with her in charge we’re all going to die!” I don’t know, if somebody got in my face and started talking baby talk to me, I’d probably pee myself too.

  79. pheenobarbidoll

    You just cannot project human morality or values onto animals. You can treat them morally and holding to good values, but you cannot and should not expect morality from them. They’re going to eat what they eat, how they eat it. If it seems cruel to us, that’s OUR issue, not the animals. I don’t like seeing baby antelope dragged to the ground and eaten by lions. But it’s not my place to prevent the lion from killing and eating baby antelope. It’s not my place to force feed it broccoli instead. The P tries to tell me it is, but the P lies.

  80. MezzoPiana

    Pheenobarbidoll, where the hell have you seen patriarchy go gung-ho for animal rights?! Seriously, I want to know. Cos from where I’m standing it seems far more patriarchal to ignore the plight of the billions of animals we currently shit on from on high than to try to afford them some consideration too.

  81. stacey

    Now I want to watch the lolcat video with the kitten eating broccoli.

    It’s nearly impossible not to anthropomorphophophosize our “pets” – feeding them what we think is good for them, giving them treats that are probably bad for them, because we feel we empathize with them. Or maybe it’s just me.

  82. stacey

    I fiercely resisted a training bra until the day a guy stopped his car in our neighbourhood and asked my friend and I for directions; he couldn’t stop staring at my budding breasts through my white t-shirt. I WAS 11 FUCKING YEARS OLD.

    So basically, it was self-protection that got me into a bra. IBTP.

  83. stacey

    Oh crapola. That was supposed to go in the Teen Addict chic thread. Sorry, all.

  84. K.A.

    Cats do threaten native bird populations, so I’m glad to see someone mention that. I will cop to preferring birds to cats any day of the week, although wild felines shouldn’t have to scratch out a hard, painful life for themselves, of course. Every day is Savage Death Island* day for them!

    *Not on topic, but I have no idea why I always type “Death Savage Island” almost every time reference is made, even though it makes no sense. Every time I do that, I scream, “WHY DID I TYPE THE WORDS IN THAT ORDER! AHHH!” but I don’t correct myself, because I manage to do it every time somehow.

    So, belated apologies to anyone confused and hurt by my misappropriation of the name of your native land.

  85. Anne

    As far as PETA’s effectiveness, don’t ask me how I know this, but fur is actually coming back to fashion. It’s popularity is increasing in recent years. Some designers have decided to fly a big finger to the anti-fur protests and use fur anyway. So much for the so-called success of their anti-fur campaign which until they jumped on the vegan bandwagon used to be PETA’s flagship cause.

    As heinous as the fur industry is, it’s hilarious that PETA’s getting a taste of their own humdrum predictable “politically incorrect shock tactics.” See how well this shit works, assholes?

  86. Greenconsciousness

    Are there lawyers here? Animal cruelty placed on a website with porn ought to trigger animal exploitation laws of some kind. Placed with porn it becomes porn. The reason is explained by other posters so I won’t repeat here. It would be the state animal cruelty law where the website was loaded. Where is NOW or any other feminist group? Where is the Animal Legal Defense Fund?

    This is the Weiner Syndrome. Porn is normalized and seen as acceptable. This is the community that long ago created and used porn in fashion and film. Masses bought it. Child sexual abuse and sado masochism is so commonplace starting with “discipline” and exploitation of children, imprinting them for life with an association between love and punishment, that when it is commercialized in LA, it sells to the masses. There are no boundaries. Tots and tiaras now have babies competing in beauty contests for the pedophile crowd, pimped by their faded dream mothers. 6 year old girls getting plastic surgery. Pornalization of horror is their world and they watch mainstream film consumers lap up everything they commercialize. Slash her again and thrill to her screams.

    Stars and wanabes can gain attention from producers and feel self rightous while selling their bodies. The women in cages photos are a perfect example – nothing in those pictures raises consciousness – they raise penises and that is what they are meant to do. And get the women jobs in their pornafied industry. It is as if the feminist movement never happened.

    Now animals – why not? Always needing a bigger hit, now crush and animal cruelty becomes acceptable. Because those who profit from it want to normalize it and they have duped this organization with glitter just like they duped the masses to buy their pornafied products.

    PETA needs to be criminally prosecuted as do those child beauty contests and the pimp parents but as long as patriarchs are allowed to control the law, we will continue down this path.

  87. pheenobarbidoll

    “Pheenobarbidoll, where the hell have you seen patriarchy go gung-ho for animal rights?! ”

    When animal rights activists go gung-ho on always knowing what’s best for animals (ie lets turn carnivores into vegetarians because we all knowing humans think it’s best for them)when it’s all based on what humans want, not the animal. That’s the P in a nutshell. ” I’m more important so what I say goes and is always right, by God”

    When someone is training a carnivore to eat only veggies, that someone is using the P’s idea that human trumps all. Your ideas on meat eating trump the animals. Your morality trumps that animals right to eat and live as it was designed. YOU get to interfere, because you’ve decided you have that right.

    You don’t have that right. You *took* it. That cat sure as shit didn’t give it to you.

    *you is not specific, it’s general use

    We do it to animals and people alike. Sometimes, we even equate people with animals so it’s easier to justify.

    ” This is for your own good, you stupid backwards savages! It’s healthier to live in a house not a mud hut! It’s healthier to use soap instead of animal fat! Since it’s proven, we now have the right to MAKE you follow OUR idea of good”

    Sound familiar?

  88. MezzoPiana

    No, pheenobarbidoll, it doesn’t sound at all familiar. The Patriarchy hates animals even more than they hate women. Oh sure, they say with words that they love them (where have we heard THAT before!) It’s still ‘manly’ to kill them for no reason doncherknow – for sport! for entertainment! for unnecessary food!! And if you don’t eat them, why then that makes you an emasculated sentimental pussy. As for your idea about Patriarchy’s deciding they know what’s best for animals, well sure. But you’ve got it wrong: it takes the form of the very oppression that vegans are against. With the notable exception of the PETA assclowns, vegans are by and large NOT the patriarchy.

    And nobody was talking about health except as the secondary concern here, the first concern being the conflicting rights of two arbitrarily ‘different’ sets of animals. That of our culturally designated “pettin’ animals” versus “eatin’ animals”. Sorry, cat rights aren’t any more pressing to me than cow rights. If (and I’ve no problem with saying it IS an if) a cat can be healthy on a vegan diet OR healthy on a diet of tinned cow pieces, the path of least harm to greatest possible number of individuals says that the vegan diet is the ethical choice. But if you don’t subscribe to the idea of cows having rights (possibly because you eat them yourself?) then sure, go right ahead with your cat privilege (ha! I like that…). Just at least admit that it’s speciesist to do so. A cat, if not a woman, is certainly a cow.

  89. pheenobarbidoll

    “possible number of individuals says that the vegan diet is the ethical choice. ”

    Which is fine to apply to HUMANS, but is not your place nor right to apply to animals. Your ethics are not their problem.

    Cat, cow it doesn’t matter. Both have a right to be animals and NOT be subjected to some privileged humans idea of ethical behavior.

    Meaning- you could think it’s unethical for cows to eat grass. Tough shit. It’s not the cows problem. The only thing that allows you to think you can decide for the cow is the P’s idea that humans SHOULD.

    You can think it’s unethical for cats to eat meat. Tough shit. It’s not the cats problem.The only thing that allows you to think you can decide for the cat is the P’s idea that humans SHOULD.

    Your human ethics don’t trump a cats, or cows, or lions or fish’s right to exist as an animal. I don’t care what they eat. So long as it isn’t YOU, your idea of what they should be eating is irrelevant. Only the P and human arrogance makes people believe otherwise.

  90. pheenobarbidoll

    To boil it down even more: There are only 2 non P, non human arrogance methods of altering a carnivore to a vegetarian/vegan-

    1) choice (the carnivore chooses to eat green beans over meat)

    2) natural evolutionary process

  91. MezzoPiana

    I think there’s some amount of talking past the arguments going on here. We are talking about cats. A domesticated species, being fed a processed, sure-as-shit unnatural diet (whether it’s vegan or not) by the humans who care for them. No, I don’t think ‘it’s unethical for cats to eat meat’. Cats, as far as we know, are not moral agents and thus there is no moral judgment to be made on their behaviour. What I do think is ethically problematic, GIVEN THAT (for the sake of argument) cows have as much right to exist and live their lives as cats do, is for humans to kill one animal and feed it to another. That’s it.

    Also, I wanted to reply earlier re your comment ‘the cat knows what it should be eating, try respecting the cat’ but since as per your next comment even your cat contradicts you my response was rather redundant. Unless you’d like to assert that cats ‘should’ be eating white chocolate.

  92. sam

    Regarding PETA and SW, they’re not equal in all ways, but they’re comparable for their exploitation of women’s sexuality in the name of humanitarian anti-violence causes taken to the streets. PETA grew from unsexy animal activism into what it is today relative to Slutwalk’s instantly pornified, photogenic rocket to the front pages.

    Some say PETA is no worse than everyone else who baits their fishing hooks with women’s dignity, but the porny colonization of social justice causes is more egregious than “Reading is sexy” bumperstickers or prostitutes pushing tube socks. These political movements are a primary means of citizen resistance and they’re being self-sabotaged from the beginning to satisfy corporate media’s porntastic terms. Both PETA and SW serve some positive purposes but they’re more of the liberal/individual sort than the pattern-shifting radical kind I believe needs more support if meaningful revolution is to happen.

  93. pheenobarbidoll

    “What I do think is ethically problematic, GIVEN THAT (for the sake of argument) cows have as much right to exist and live their lives as cats do, is for humans to kill one animal and feed it to another. That’s it.”

    That, yes. Feeding a cat veggies and no meat is not an ethical solution (which has been implied in posts on this subject) and has the P all over it.

    If I decide to kill a cow to feed my cat, that’s the P telling me I have the right.

    If I decide to force my cat to eat green beans instead of meat, that’s also the P telling me I have that right.

    The white chocolate eating cat contradicted everything, every chance he got. He was also mean.

  94. laxsoppa

    About cats—I should have included this in my original question to MezzoPiana, but nevermind. A cat WILL kill while roaming free even if it’s properly fed at home, because that is its nature. It’s not about having to choose between fresh entrecote and, I don’t know, soy kibble? Cats are the most effective killing machines in the group of dry-land mammals, and letting them roam free is irresponsible precisely because of this.

    Having a vegetarian alternative to cats is cool, I suppose, if it truly satisfies their nutritional needs and keeps them healthy. That said, how having a vegetarian alternative for feeding an animal that is a predator by nature is deemed important enough to qualify as an animal rights issue is just way beyond me.

    sam—”Both PETA and SW serve some positive purposes but they’re more of the liberal/individual sort than the pattern-shifting radical kind I believe needs more support if meaningful revolution is to happen.”

    Thank you for this. Individual solutions cannot address systemic problems adequately, if at all. Veganism is cool and ethical as a lifestyle choice, but unless the problem being adressed by going vegan is to do with personal health, well-being and/or one’s personal consumption of our planet’s resources, it solves nothing.

  95. laxsoppa

    …. Oh well, I suppose humans win the killing machine contest any day of the week. But anyway.

  96. Greenconsciousness

    Are there lawyers here? Animal cruelty placed on a website with porn ought to trigger animal exploitation laws of some kind. Placed with porn it becomes porn. The reason is explained by other posters so I won’t repeat here. It would be the state animal cruelty law where the website was loaded. Where is NOW or any other feminist group? Where is the Animal Legal Defense Fund?

    This is the Weiner Syndrome. Porn is normalized and seen as acceptable. This is the community that long ago created and used porn in fashion and film. Masses bought it. Child sexual abuse and sado masochism is so commonplace starting with “discipline” and exploitation of children, imprinting them for life with an association between love and punishment, that when it is commercialized in LA, it sells to the masses.

    There are no boundaries. Tots and tiaras now have babies competing in beauty contests for the pedophile crowd, pimped by their faded dream mothers. 6 year old girls getting plastic surgery. Pornalization of horror is their world and they watch mainstream film consumers lap up everything they commercialize. Slash her again and thrill to her screams.

    Stars and wanabes can gain attention from producers and feel self rightous while selling their bodies. The women in cages photos are a perfect example – nothing in those pictures raises consciousness – they raise the pe–s and that is what they are meant to do. And get the women jobs in their pornafied industry. It is as if the feminist movement never happened.

    Now animals – why not? Always needing a bigger hit, now crush and animal cruelty becomes acceptable. Because those who profit from it want to normalize it and they have duped this organization with glitter just like they duped the masses to buy their pornafied products.

    PETA needs to be criminally prosecuted as do those child beauty contests and the pimp parents but as long as patriarchs are allowed to control the law, we will continue down this path.

  97. Greenconsciousness

    The above comment was in mod for several hours until I reposted and obscured the word p—s — I think it is ridiculous and infantile that we cannot use the actual words for body parts – they are not dirty or obscene.

  98. Anne

    pheenobarbidoll – I’ve run into some gun-toting ALF-touting wingnuts that could put Ted Nugent to shame.

  99. lizor

    I agree with posters who propose that this website will further fetishize animal torture. Apparently there is already a branch of porn involving women torturing and killing animals, so guys are already getting off to this sick shit.

    I agree with phenobarbidoll about the imposition of human values onto animals. As MezzoPlana rightly says, cats are not moral agents. No animals are. And as K.A. says “wild felines shouldn’t have to scratch out a hard, painful life for themselves”, however, that is the reality for animals in the wild. Predators spend their time trying to find something to kill and eat or protect their territory and non-predators spend their time trying not to get killed.

    Rights are a human concept brought about to modify human behaviour in social groups and they are intertwined with responsibility. To impose this onto the animal world is colonialist.

    Animal rights are actually a mechanism to control HUMAN behaviour in relation to animals- and that control is sadly, desperately needed. But in the reality of wilderness and the creatures that live for the most part outside of contact with human communities the application of rights theory is simply absurd.

  100. lizor

    Oh sorry. That should read; “Predators spend their time trying to find something to kill either to eat or to protect their territory”

  101. lizor

    And, come to think of it, many non-predators will also kill out of territorial instinct. That’s why relocation of “nuisance” animals – generally wild animals whose territory has been taken over by urban sprawl – can be extremely inhumane.

  102. ivyleaves

    Read the .pdf on veggie cat diet study. Please be advised that it proves exactly nothing. It does show that serum levels studied of 2 substances were within normal for a group of cats on a “Vegetarian” diet, whether commercially sourced or not and another group of cats on a “Conventional” diet commercially sourced.

    The vegetarian diets all had taurine supplements, as do all conventional diets as no commercial cat food contains enough animal sources of taurine without supplements being added to it, and nowadays will not be certified without it. This finding was a foregone conclusion.

    The other nutrient called cobalamin is essentially vitamin B12 which is necessary to humans as well and is one nutrient hurdle for all vegan diets, and most likely was supplemented for in the cat’s vegan diet, I’m not sure about the conventional cat food. Again, unlikely to have been a problem.

    The study itself mentions a couple of other problematic nutrients that it did not test for, due to the lack of reliable testing.

    The truth is, most of our cats are on very marginally healthy diets. Some cats get addicted to kibble with artificially sprayed on flavor and odor enhancers, or stuff like white chocolate and parmesean cheese.

    I can only buy a certain manufacturer’s kibble for my cat. He refuses wet food altogether and every other conventional cat food I have tried will result in the death of my cat due to severe diarrhea. I am still trying promising foods to see if we can get the same results for less money. Cats weren’t built to digest grains and all the other filler contained in conventional cat foods, with some cats less able to tolerate them than others.

    Some cats that are diagnosed with Irritable Bowel Disease (IBD), are really just diagnosed with “We have no idea what is wrong, but let us sell you expensive stuff and vet visits until your cat dies.” These cats can be cured by changing to an animal diet, sometimes consisting of raw food diets with whole animals, as they would consume in the wild. I personally can’t stomach the idea of this, so my cat gets the expensive kibble. Someday, we may have no choice but to switch to save his life.

    One size fits all is patriarchy’s answer to questions.

  103. minervaK

    Cats don’t quickly die when fed a vegetarian diet

    Correct. They die slowly, painfully, often of very bad diseases. There is no supplement in the world that can replace animal protein, which is what they have evolved to eat.

    I’m a vegetarian, and the idea of eating animal corpses makes me shudder, but I feed my cats meat because that’s what they need. If I could feed them meat from animals that lived natural, unencumbered lives free of human intervention, I would do that, but that kind of meat doesn’t exist anymore. That, to me, is where the ethics problems come into play. As a culture we have decided that, since we’re going to eat it eventually anyway, the animal doesn’t need to have a good life, and that we’re justified in slaughtering it in the most convenient way possible for US, regardless of its effect on the animal. Does it surprise anyone that the same culture so easily dismisses the rights of over half its population?

  104. minervaK

    Sorry, but vegepets.info is hardly a reliable source. Every veterinarian I’ve ever talked to (and there have been many) has reacted with horror when I’ve asked them about vegetarian cats. I’ve also worked with veterinary nutritionists on several special diets for cats, and I will gladly send you their names if you’d like to hear what they have to say on the vegetarian cat issue. It ain’t pretty.

    re: the “kill one animal to feed another” issue — there’s no way to live without killing something. Your body kills millions of bacteria every day. Everything you touch has killed something, somewhere. I don’t get along with vegetarians much, even though I am one, because most of them refuse to accept this reality. They believe that they have somehow removed themselves from that cycle simply by eliminating meat from their diet. They refuse to grok that countless bunnies are beheaded by the machines that harvest their lettuce, or that wild animals die because they’ve lost their natural habitat to farms.

    The problem is that we have dealt with the reality of this killing cycle, of which we are a natural part, by trying to eliminate it from our consciousness. We sequester cows on factory farms away from population centers and slaughter them in abbatoirs. Don’t even get me started on chickens and eggs and milk. We have commodified the lives that sustain ours to an uholy degree, and that’s what I find sickening. I got no beef with beef itself.

  105. stacey

    @Greenconsciousness, I would imagine the body-parts-filter is a way of diverting dudes who want to clutter up the threads… they like to refer to their manly appendage, and what they would like to do to us.

  106. Le Chat Noir

    “I’m a vegetarian, and the idea of eating animal corpses makes me shudder, but I feed my cats meat because that’s what they need.”

    Same here. In fact, I recently read this book by a vet that says cats do best on raw meat with supplementation: “Your Cat: Simple Secrets for a Longer Stronger Life” by Elizabeth Hodgkins. My cat unfortunately barely touches wet food, so trying to transition him to raw meat is not so easy.

  107. K.A.

    I understand what Pheeno et al are saying about the whole “humans know best” bullshit. But it also disturbs me when it’s phrased as “put the cat equidistant from peas and salmon…” because it implies that if one thing is preferred and somehow “natural” to an animal, it is always optimal.

    Put a plate of cookies and a plate of peas equidistant from a human child, and I don’t have to tell you what happens!

    To be a little more transparent about why this argument annoys me:

    Rape is “natural” to animals including, but not limited to male people; infanticide is very natural in the animal kingdom among males and females alike. But we remove baby hamsters from the cages of mother hamsters right away, don’t we? And we don’t accept in our society homo sapien mothers who kill unwanted newborns, what, with all the laws that allow them to drop them off at many community venues anonymously (we can get into issues about that when birth control measures are withheld from women via political and economic coercion, but you get my point).

    Obviously cat food is a far cry from issues of women’s oppression, and my intent is not to cheapen women’s oppression with the comparison, but I’m pointing out an argument form that grosses me out in general because it infects discourse, blogular or otherwise, epidemically.

    It’s highly likely that the cat does know best, that its preferences are optimal for its health — hey, that dovetails nicely! What a coincidence! Evolution strikes again! — but we can’t say we necessarily know it to be true because it’s how it happens in the wild. We can go back generations upon generations upon generations of certain human cultures and find a steady stream of hunters and red meat-eaters who are worse for the wear for consuming red meat as their preferred protein source.

    I wouldn’t like a vegan assuming they know better either and forcing their lifestyle choice on their trapped creature of choice. Right now, all we know is that meat is the safest choice for the animal, but more extensive, unbiased research might surprise us with diet adaptability/optimization outside of that tradition and cat preference.

  108. K.A.

    The R-word got me trapped in moderation.

  109. K.A.

    I hope this doesn’t upset anybody, but I keep laughing about this thread, because I picture MRA trolls looking at it, and misrepresenting it, all like: “The anti-porn radical femin*zis were talking about hating men and porn and then, naturally, started fighting about cat food. Of course.” Ha ha ha. MRAs and their stupid! Ho ho ho.

  110. Lidon

    re: the “kill one animal to feed another” issue — there’s no way to live without killing something. Your body kills millions of bacteria every day.

    I agree, so I don’t think we should be self-righteous about our choices, but just because we kill stuff without meaning to doesn’t justify killing when we don’t have to.

    @ K.A. Haha! No kidding, huh? Any dog people around? What are your views on vegetarian dogs?

  111. pheenobarbidoll

    KA- you can’t compare animal amorality with human morality. That’s why the ” well X is natural in nature so it is in humans too” BS is wrong, and idiotic.

    Animals have no moral agency, humans do. It IS natural in nature and the argument is valid when one is discussing nature and non human animals. It only falls apart when one tries to compare X with no moral agency to Y with moral agency.

  112. minervaK

    Lidon — Unlike cats, dogs *CAN* be vegetarians. And, at what point do you believe killing becomes a “have to?”

  113. Jill

    non-predators spend their time trying not to get killed.

    Yeah, but they mostly spend their time trying to find food like anybody else. I wish you could see, for instance, the pathetic deer around here. The record-breaking Central Texas drought has killed off all their food (in summer deer normally survive on leaves and the green shoots found on twigs, but nothing has been green around here since April). They are skin and bones. I don’t normally feed wild animals, but this year I’ve been chucking out commercial extruded deer food because I just can’t stand to see these bedraggled, skeletal does with this year’s fawns at their sides and last year’s yearlings still mooching. I’ve got a small herd rolling up to the house every evening, sticking me for 50 pounds a week. I realize I’m probably just keeping them alive so some jagoff hunter can pick them off in the fall, but a bullet has got to be better than slow death by starvation. Hopefully there’s something nasty in the deer chow that’ll give the hunters diarrhea when they eat the venison.

  114. Lidon

    For example, I personally do not have to eat meat. I don’t want to eat meat. Therefore I don’t and I haven’t for years. I figured what I said was pretty clear. I’m not saying *you* were implying this, but I’ve heard the argument, “But what about the suffering plants?! Plants feel too!!!” Just because my body kills bacteria, doesn’t justify me shooting my neighbor in the face, it doesn’t justify bull fighting, it doesn’t justify lots of things. Using a general statement (such as “life is pain”) for rationalization of a specific incident is a logical fallacy.

    That is really interesting about dogs. When I can afford one or two, I will have to look into that.

  115. Lidon

    “Least harm possible.” Make sense?

  116. K.A.

    Pheeno, I’m kind of scratching my head over here, because I know humans have moral agency and, say, insects don’t. Later in my post, I said I’d put money on cat’s preferences being optimal for their health, but their preference isn’t what proves it per se, that’s all. Maybe I included too many examples of how this fallacy is used in totally different contexts and confused the issue.

    By pointing out the problem with arguments from nature, it is not in opposition to the implication that humans have moral agency. That humans have a greater ability to reason is not only necessarily implied by my comments (head scratcher number one), but so not the point (head scratcher number two). My intent was not to compare humans and other species with regard to morality, but to point out the logical fallacy that natural preferences are always best; I’m talking about the *health* of the animals in this case, not the *morality* of their having killed something.

    Certainly, in isolation, you could take the baby-eating hamsters and newborns-in-dumpsters phenomena and say I made a poor choice for comparison, since that part was alluding to a broader issue of morality to show how this logical fallacy iterates in other contexts, but I talked about humans being the ones to intervene in the case of the hamsters — not the hamster! So different moral capacities wasn’t my point at all. The allusion was to show how this fallacy can rear its head in cases where human beings, and human beings alone, are the ones making moral decisions. And — also for context — I even gave the human example of choosing between cookies vs. peas, for instance. The moral agency of humans, as well as pointing out the problems with arguments from nature, are not in opposition, but are necessarily related and come to the same conclusion.

    God, all this, to theoretically protect an animal I don’t even like all that much. Cats are vectors of disease. Fuzzy, cute, purring vectors of evil infectious agents. I would sooner have a field mouse as a pet. But I wouldn’t because Pheeno would have her cat eat it (and she wouldn’t have to train it — it would PREFER it!)

  117. K.A.

    I THINK that’s what you thought I was saying. I still wasn’t sure when formulating my excessive response re: cat food. But I think when I put “optimal choice” you meant optimal moral choice and not for the health of the cat, which I don’t think I specified explicitly (I’m not about to go back and reread my own post, pshaw! I write a lot when I drink bottom-shelf bourbon).

  118. minervaK

    Lidon — Sorry, I’m being pedantic to make a point: for cats, the kill is a “have to.” Some humans somewhere are the ones who have decided, with our big, moral brains, that it’s wrong for cats to kill and eat prey, and thus we stick them on vegetarian diets, thus slowly killing *the cats* rather than meat to feed them. See the contradiction? I’ll retire to the margarita gallery now, lest I become tiresome.

  119. Lidon

    @ minervaK: Ah, I see. It’s okay! I’ve gotten into many debates, usually with immediate family, and I took that to be the interrogating tone that leads to multitudes of Red Herrings. Sorry if I misunderstood. Enjoy the margarita(s).

  120. lizor

    @ Jill. Yes, they most certainly are looking for food as well as trying not to be eaten. I have witnessed animals, both predators and non-predators weakened from lack of food when the habitat can’t produce enough of what they need. It’s brutal and I am sorry that this is happening to the deer near where you live. I also agree with you that “a bullet has got to be better than a slow death”.

  121. pheenobarbidoll

    No KA, I’m just saying that those people (usually men) who use the “well it’s natural because monkeys, cats, lions etc do it” are inherently wrong in their argument, because they are comparing apples to SUV’s. It’s not even apples to oranges. You can’t compare amoral to moral. Immoral to moral, yes. Amoral to moral not so much.
    But in this case, I (and others) am not using the ” it’s nature” argument to justify *human* behavior. So the argument shouldn’t ring those alarm bells like it does when you hear people trying to justify human behavior by using examples of animal behavior.

  122. pheenobarbidoll

    Basically, I was agreeing with you in that the argument ” monkeys assault so it must be normal for people” type argument is wrong, but also pointing out that’s not the argument I made.

  123. veganrampage

    Ingird Newkirk IS PETA. She runs the whole shebang after her Alex whatshisface quit years ago.

    I’m afraid it’s a hopeless cause as she hates both women specifically, people in general,and animals too.

    She has a personal gassing fetish. She has killed tens of thousands of animals personally. She wants to put everyone out of “their suffering.” In her mind, everyone would be better off dead, and they will be if she has any say in the matter.

    Now do you understand her mind set? She could give two shits what anyone else thinks. She thrives on hate and controversy.

    I have spent years seething that she is the face of veganism and “animal rights.”

    She fucking hates animals like she hates all life!

  1. PETA are fucking crazy, and fucking stupid « Anti-Porn Feminists

    [...] are launching a porn site. Read the HuffPo article here. Found via IBTP here. Everything I wanted to say about it has already been said in the comments thread, but I will [...]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>