Two thumbs down for PETA

While I am a (more than) happy supporter of vegetarianism and veganism, I can't get behind People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). Hasn't happened yet. Can't see it happening anytime in the future. I agree with their stance that animal rights are vital issues in our contemporary society, especially when so many of our "interactions" with animals and animal products are mediated through factory farms, animal product processing centers, product testing on animals, and the clothing trade. Seeking changes that protect animals from cruelty, inhumane conditions, and abuse are issues affecting not only the animals themselves but also our human population. While I do not have a problem with people naturally eating meat because of my personal beliefs about our evolutionary position on the food chain and our natural design to be omnivores, I think we as a culture have worked really hard to pull ourselves out of the natural way of things. There is little that is natural about the production of much of our food, especially meat and meat products. As such, I fully support the many reasons people choose to become vegetarian or vegan -- be it concern for their own health due to the unnatural conditions that intercede in the production of our food (including the use of antibiotics, chemicals, synthetics, etc.); disdain for the cruelty inflicted upon animals in their journey to our grocery stores, food establishments, and stomachs; a deep respect for animals as living creatures worthy of living those lives to their full and natural ends; a contempt for the conditions endured by human laborers as they power the food industry at all levels (including fields, slaughterhouses, and the service industry); an economic unwillingness to financially support any of the harmful practices in our food industries; a simple dislike for meat or animal products; or any number of other valid and worthy reasons.

But, when it comes to PETA, the organization's utter and repeated failure to recognize the intersections of social justice issues prevents me from having any willingness to support their work. Whether intentionally or out of ignorance, their continual focus on animal rights, to the extent of perpetuating and reinforcing other social problems, serves (they think) to advance their cause while actually harming the equally vital efforts of other social movements. Allow me to give a number of examples to help clarify my frustration:

I.
Most recently PETA wrote a letter to the commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection

asking to buy space at each of the nine southwest border sectors [of the U.S./Mexico border fence] for our new ad. Those considering entry will then read this message: "If the border patrol doesn't get you, the chicken and burgers will. Go vegan" (or, in Spanish, "Si no te agarra la migra, te atraparan el pollo y las hamburguesas. Sé vegano").

Linsday Rajt, assistant manager of PETA's vegan campaigns, said:

We think that Mexicans and other immigrants should be warned if they cross into the U.S. [that] they are putting their health at risk by leaving behind a healthier, staple diet of corn tortillas, beans, rice, fruits and vegetables.

PETA spokeswoman Ashley Byrne added:

America is no longer the land of the free and home of the brave; it's becoming the land of the sick and the home of the obese.

In his Houston Chronicle article, reporter James Pinkerton described the proposed ad (see the picture), saying:

PETA says its billboards would picture "fit and trim" Mexicans in their own country, where their diet is more in line with the group's mission. Another image on the sign would portray obese American children and adults "gorging on meaty, fat- and cholesterol-packed American food."

While the government is expected to reject PETA's offer because it would limit visibility through the fence (a whole other topic I'm not touching today), the fact that PETA would be so ignorant of the larger social issues at play baffles me. Do they really believe that their "target audience" (which is who exactly? folks scaling the wall?) are going to be interested in their message? Or that it would deter them from crossing? I would think folks crossing the border have other things on their mind. Plus, does PETA think Mexican and other immigrant populations never eat meat or cook with meat products (uh, lard, anyone?!), or that they have the resources to eat healthily all the time, or even that healthy eating is not possible within U.S. borders? No offense, but I tend to believe that people desire to move across borders for a reason, and I think those reasons probably outweigh the food warning on a billboard. While I appreciate PETA's apparent concern for immigrant's diet and health, I am confused by their choice of actions. Rather than addressing the exploitation and dehumanization of immigrants and people of color working in the food processing industry, or addressing economic conditions that encourage people to leave their home nations to begin with (where apparently they have a better diet), instead PETA wants to put up an advertisement. I'm honestly lost. They are volunteering to participate in racist and economically oppressive action to further their cause.

II.
PETA has a history of using women's bodies as sexual symbols to grab folks' attention and sell their message. In their "I'd rather go naked than wear fur" and "Be comfortable in your own skin. Don't wear fur" print campaigns, as well as a number of public protests, they've featured attractive women -- nude or nearly nude -- selling their message. Setting aside the sexist reality that they feature only conventionally attractive women and no men in their ads or public displays, when called out on the misogynistic nature of their ads and public protests, their response seemed to echo a "we'll do whatever works" ideology.

In a letter to the editor of the New York Times, PETA president Ingrid E. Newkirk said

While cruelty to animals is a serious matter that should elicit widespread public outrage, efforts to reach the public through more serious means often fall on deaf ears in a world in which sex sells and there are both a war and an economic downturn. ... Forgive us our bikinis and our shock tactics, but our message that all beings — both human and nonhuman — deserve compassion and respect is one that we must work hard to make heard.

So, if understand correctly, what they're saying is that sex sells. Well, no shit, but that doesn't mean you should use it. Disrespecting woman to promote animal rights does not seem like a progressive, forward-moving approach to me.

(And on an equally depressing side note, did you hear about the world's first vegan strip club? Casa Diablo Gentlemen's Club in Portland. According to Fox News coverage (of course, and caution: totally raunchy website for video link), the club's motto is "Vixens not veal, sizzle not steak. We put the meat on the pole, not on the plate." Sick. As Ann at Feministing says so well, "[They're] using the 'ideal' female body type -- something men want and women want to be -- as an incentive to go vegan. This is deeply fucked up, especially because there are dozens of real, compelling reasons to switch to a vegan lifestyle -- none of them based on sexist bullshit.")

III.
On July 31 of this year, Tim McLean, a passenger on a Greyhound bus en route to Winnipeg, was brutally stabbed and beheaded by a fellow bus passenger, a stranger. Apparently the assailant, Vince Weiguang Li, began eating part of McLean's body. And PETA's response was an attempt to run a newspaper ad with the following text:

"Manitoba... An innocent young victim's throat is cut... His struggles and cries are ignored... The man with the knife shows no emotion... The victim is slaughtered and his head cut of... His flesh is eaten. It still goes on!" ... "If this ad leaves a bad taste in your mouth, please give a thought to what sensitive animals think and feel when they come to the end of their frightening journey and see, hear, and smell the slaughterhouse. Try switching to a healthy vegetarian diet and save lives every day, including your own."

I don't know about you, but as much as I support a vegetarian/vegan lifestyle, using such a tragedy to get people to eat more veggies doesn't sit well with me. I understand what PETA wants to say and the passion with which they're trying to say it, but I think they went about it in a pretty insensitive, disrespectful way. (That's an understatement.)

And PETA's comment on the situation:

While it isn't every day that a human is violently attacked and eaten by another human, it's worth noting that it is the norm for many people not to give any thought to the fact that restaurants are serving flesh that comes from innocents who were minding their own business before someone came after them with a knife. How amazingly and conveniently compartmentalized the human mind is…

Now, to the best of my knowledge, the ad was rejected by the local paper, but even the thought that trying to run it was a good strategy just doesn't work for me.


All that said, where do we stand? In efforts to support animal rights PETA uses racism, sexism, and the exploitation of tragedy to further their cause. Ignoring the trade-off they are willing to make to further their intentions does not, and will not, convince me to support their version of "social justice."


UPDATE: These people never stop. 2 quick hits:
1. PETA recently submitted a commercial they hoped to air during the Superbowl. It got rejected by NBC for "depict[ing] a level of sexuality exceeding our standards." The commercial is part of PETA's "Veggie Love" campaign. When will they learn that there are better ways and means to promote vegetarianism than using sex(ism) and women's bodies? They really, really suck at understanding the whole intersectional exploitation thing. (To read more, Melissa over at Shakesville has laid out the argument quite clearly.)

2. PETA is using KKK imagery to protest the American Kennel Club, meaning that PETA protesters are dressing up like the KKK in both video campaigns and live protests (standing on the street outside Madison Square Gardens handing leaflets to passersby -- the ones who stop to strangers dressed like the KKK). I am not shitting you. I am trying to understand how dressing up like the most notoriously racist terrorist group in American history is okay and I just can't figure it out. As Cara over at Feministe suggested:

This is not progressive. Do you hear me? This is not progressive. And the progressive movement needs to cut off this organization entirely and let reasonable, smart animal rights organizations that fight just as hard without sacrificing the dignity of humans take over. Now.

-2/10/09

Twilight

So I've been thinking a lot about sexism, patriarchy, and feminism lately... (What an opening line, right?! Gimme a break. I'm an academic in denial.) And, in a seemingly unrelated and perhaps contradictory vein (just wait), I've been reading a lot of fiction this summer, trying to ease my mind with the joyful nature of written language before the looming school year forces me back into writings' excruciatingly complex, theoretical, and brain-mushing side. On Thursday morning I finished reading Stephenie Meyer's debut novel Twilight which has been on my reading list for a little while now. I tend to find a lot of pleasure in reading young adult fiction, a genre too often highly underrated. Upon completion of my chosen light reading, I have found myself quite conflicted. Why? Sexism, patriarchy, and feminism.

First of all, I think Twilight is a brilliant story. (I'll do my best not to write any spoilers for those who haven't read the book but would like to. Read freely, eager readers, read!) Meyers has written, in Bella Swan and Edward Cullen, rich lead characters, paid exquisite attention to detail, and penned a story that literally raises your pulse and makes your heart ache with exhilaration, anxiety, longing, and general emotional conflict. She has essentially written the eternal love story -- two star-crossed individuals tempted by a forbidden love and thus living out their relationship with the heartbreaking understanding that they are destined to be one another's destruction. While Meyer doesn't focus on it, the story has a deep core of melancholy, impossible desire, and breathtaking sadness. Think along the lines of the most tragic rendition of Romeo and Juliet you've ever seen or read, add vampires and a lot of rain, and you've got Twilight. In a number of ways the story reminds me of several ancient Chinese or Japanese legends, so many of which end tragically and heartbreakingly: a lover drowning him or herself in the sea from sorrow, broken promises that destroy love and goodness, magical transformations that show the heartbreaking true nature of persons -- stories that show utter sadness and sorrow in ways often missing in Western tales. But, I felt it in Twilight.

That said, as I read Twilight, I found myself mentally reliving fantasies of "love" from early adolescence in which I would be in some horrible predicament and my beau would swoop down and rescue me in his big, strong, brave way -- saving the day and protecting me from harm. (Gag me.) Twilight exactly mirrors these depictions of love that rely on ideas of men as brave, strong protectors and women as innocent, meek, mild flowers in need of being taken care of. Stories of utter dependence and domination. (Puke.) Seriously, I've spent the past 15 years redefining my ideas of relationships, intentionally working to counter these lies we've been told about how the perfect love story is lived out. And here it is today, in print, in my hands, presented in beautifully, heartbreakingly devastating prose telling me again these falisies. I want to wilt in the sadness of that recognition.

Just as a recap, the essential story of Edward and Bella's relationship is something like this: Edward's been a vampire for a hundred years or so, but always alone. Then he meets Bella and is fascinated. (Gotta love the "I've roamed the earth for a century and never found anyone who makes me feel like you do" motif. It pulls at the heartstrings of girls and women who never learned better. Do I sound bitter?) On the flip side, in an interview with Entertainment Weekly Meyer said,

Bella is an every girl. She's not a hero, and she doesn't know the difference between Prada and whatever else is out there. She doesn't always have to be cool, or wear the coolest clothes ever. She's normal. And there aren't a lot of girls in literature that are normal.

Being 'normal' and 'everyday' is fine and wonderful (really, I mean it), but if Bella really is 'everyday' and 'normal,' I'm a little scared. While Bella is feisty, quick-witted, and intelligent, she also spends most of the book falling all over Edward, who just happens to like her back. Lucky her. Envision the most "Oh, I love him so much. I can't live without him. I don't know why he likes me. But, he's gorgeous and I would do anything for him" angsty teen image you can drag up. That's Bella. (And, true-to-God, I say that with love. Cuz Lord knows, I love these characters.)

When it comes down to it, I am really concerned about the power dynamics in this whole thing. And when I say "power" I mean a number of things. Yes, physical power. Edward could kill Bella in a second. No questions asked. He could do anything with/to Bella, with or without her consent. Physically, he's got that strength. But, emotionally and psychologically, he controls himself. And we're supposed to love him for it. (And we do.) Bella, on the other hand, what's she got? Undying love. That's about it. She's okay with Edward spying on her at school and watching her while she sleeps and asking her to tell lies to protect their relationship -- because she loves him. But, take that love away, and what do you have? A stalker. Once again, I've gotta say, I love Edward, but seriously, if Bella ever put her foot down -- which she wouldn't -- their whole situation would look so different. So, when I say "power" I'm talking about something much deeper than physical power. I'm talking about that exceedingly fine line between permission and domination. About the role of an individual's will as it interacts with someone else's. We accept Edward's behavior because Bella accepts it, sometimes even welcomes it. Does that make her, or him, wrong-minded? Not necessarily. It's just a reminder of how emotions filter our understanding of the world. Significantly.

So, what am I saying? Um, I think Bella, despite her displays of strength and perseverance, is in a supremely unbalanced relationship which seems to be tied up in the difficult grey spaces surrounding issues of will and domination. Plus, we've got that added layer of the female character as the submissive, household duty fulfilling, "I'll do anything because I love you" role, which mostly sucks cuz we as a society are still fighting, fighting, fighting to offer alternative views of womanhood. If this is the role you choose for yourself, fine, but I want to know that you think you had an option, a true choice, not that your womanhood was defined in this way because it's the only way. Do you see my distinction here? (And on a side note, I also read the whole Uglies series by Scott Westerfeld this summer. It's an excellent series critiquing the consumptive, beauty and fame dominated ideologies of society, and the main character is a strong, take-no-crap girl named Tally who embodies femininity and womanhood very differently than Bella and STILL gets the guy(s). Check it out.)

Now, to Bella's credit, at one point in the book (p. 473-474) she says

I'll be the first to admit that I have no experience with relationships, but it just seems logical... a man and a woman have to be somewhat equal... as in, one of them can't always be swooping in and saving the other one. They have to save each other equally. ... I can't always be Lois Lane. I want to be Superman, too.

So she sees this inequality, this power-differential, and identifies it as a problem for her. But I can't say I'm in love with her solution. (Uh, changing SPECIES for a guy?! Uh...)

Leonard Sax, in an article for The Mercury News in Silicon Valley, talks about the gender roles in the Twilight series this way:

The lead male characters, Edward Cullen and Jacob Black, are muscular and unwaveringly brave, while Bella and the other girls bake cookies, make supper for the men and hold all-female slumber parties. It gets worse for feminists: Bella is regularly threatened with violence in the first three books, and in every instance she is rescued by Edward or Jacob. In the third book she describes herself as "helpless and delicious." ... For more than three decades, political correctness has required that educators and parents pretend that gender doesn't really matter. The results of that policy are upon us: a growing cohort of young men who spend many hours each week playing video games and looking at pornography online, while their sisters and friends dream of gentle werewolves who are content to cuddle with them and dazzling vampires who will protect them from danger. In other words, ignoring gender differences is contributing to a growing gender divide.

So, why am I blathering on about all this? Here's the big reason: I, as a grown-up, trying-to-be-critical-of-the-world-around-me woman, can have this whole little conversation with myself (see above) about the power dynamics in this vampire-human love story. But I'm not the target audience for this book. The book is marketed as a young adult novel and has been supremely popular with the 12-17 year old girl bracket (aka - middle school, high school girls). And it worries me. (Do you wanna see what I'm talking about? Check out this short vid from Twilight's reception at Comic-Con in San Diego. Couple key quotes, in additional to all the adolescent screaming: "She skipped school [to come]..."; "We screamed! It was awesome!"; "Obsessive Cullen Disorder." Sigh...)

Do I think young people should be prevented from reading the book? Absolutely not. If they want to read it, read it. (I'm not into banning books, or restricting who reads what books. I think banning books is bad. And mean.) But, are young people talking about the power dynamics of this love story? I don't know. But I haven't been seeing signs that they are.

Plus, I think the series is about to get way more popular, possibly with a wider audience. Twilight, the movie, is coming out November 21, 2008 (taking the release slot Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince vacated when their release got moved to Summer 2009) and is likely to draw big crowds. Lots of folks say the book/movie franchise is likely to be the next Harry Potter. I don't think it's going to go that far, but it might make a stir. Think about this: The movie cast is led by Kristen Stewart (of Jumper, Into the Wild, Zathura, and Panic Room fame) playing Bella and Robert Pattinson (who's best known for playing Cedric Diggory in two Harry Potter films) playing Edward. Add Catherine Hardwicke as director (Thirteen and The Nativity Story), Melissa Rosenberg as the screenwriter (writer/producer on Dexter, The O.C., writer of Step Up, etc.), and Carter Burwell on the score (No Country for Old Men, Intolerable Cruelty, A Knight's Tale, Being John Malkovich, The Big Lebowski, Fargo, etc. etc.) and WHOA. (And, on a side note, Meyer's stipulation when she signed over rights for the movie was that the film had to be rated no higher than PG-13, which I assume it tied to her desire to support a film she feels comfortable watching as a practicing member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. To read more about how Meyer's Mormon philosophy affected her writing of the Twilight series, check out this article in TimesOnline. The book is brimming with sexual tension and implied violence, but Hardwicke is on board too, so I expect the PG-13 goal will be met.)

Just for fun, here's the film's trailer:


All that said, do I plan to read the other three books in the series? Absolutely. Do I plan to watch the movie? Probably. Does any of that abate my concerns about the messages being reinforced about the roles of men and women in relationships? No. It's just a reminder that issues of feminism, sexism, and patriarchy are crazy complicated. And just like in Meyer's story, sometimes you're tempted by the "evil" but the real question is how you deal with it.

UPDATE: So, I finished New Moon, book two in the series, and I'm disappointed. I keep seeing other people with these little decorative buttons sayings "Bella takes feminism back 100 years." Now I know why. (If you're not into spoilers, stop reading.) The first hundred pages demonstrates very clearly that Bella does not exist as a complete and individual person outside the context of her failed relationship with Edward. Then the next 150 pages describe her apathy towards life and self, her deep emotional imbalance, and her self-destructive tendencies. I can cut a girl some slack for being heartbroken, but the heartbreak Bella lives is a denial of her own worthwhile humanity, and I think it sucks, sends bad messages about women and love, and is frankly annoying. Moving on, I really like Jacob, but think Bella treats him like shit. She's a user and drops him in a second when it suites her. Regardless of her 'remorse' or 'guilt' or whatever, the ease with which she treats her self-proclaimed best friend with such lack of concern or consideration is crap. She's fickle, and once again willing to sacrifice literally EVERYTHING for the love of her man. It makes me grumpy. - 9/10/08

UPDATE: No time like the present for yet another update, eh? So, I watched Twilight the movie the weekend after Thanksgiving, finished Eclipse in early December, and wrapped up Breaking Dawn on New Year's day. (Happy 2009, y'all.) My response? (Spoilers are included, so stop reading if you don't wanna know.) Ho-hum. That's my response: ho-hum.

I guess my summary would be that in the last two books we lose some of the richness that could have been our main characters (Bella, Edward, and Jacob). While the action is rich (and highly compatible with film-making), true emotional depth and complexity gets a bit lost, I think.

Eclipse was essentially an angsty book -- Edward being his overbearing, overprotective self (which got annoying), Jacob being his heartbroken teenage self (which also got annoying), and Bella being endlessly selfish, failing to be decisive about how she deals with others' emotions, and thus hurting everyone more than necessary (also annoying). Though, I must admit, the battle at the end of the book was pretty amazing.

Breaking Dawn was LONG, at 756 pages, and became a series of plot points that really reduced our characters to predictable protagonists. Meyer's writing is compelling, so you are engrossed and keep reading, but I think she betrays her own potential (that sounds harsh in a way I don't really intend it to...) by truly transforming Bella into a Mary Sue. She becomes a vampire and is PERFECT. Lucky her. Our fallible (and thus humanly lovable) Bella is gone. In the end, the story is resolved as a happy ending, ride-off-into-the-sunset series. Worth reading. (And a quick read.) But, a bit disappointing.

The Twilight movie was okay. I took my dad for an "outsider's" perspective, and he liked it. I did too, I think. Nothing amazing, but good. I would say all the reviews (the good and bad) are pretty on par.

Also, there was a very interesting conversation over at Racialicious titled "The Politics of Wizards and Vampires" about the ideological differences between the left-leaning Harry Potter books and the right-leaning Twilight series. (The post was written by the awesome Alisa Valdes-Rodriquez, who I know best from having written the wonderful ChicaLit novel The Dirty Girls Social Club.) While I agree with most of the analysis, I think it's important to be careful not to paint one side or another as 'right' or 'wrong,' because we are talking about deep ideological differences. In the end we will all choose our stances, but it's important to think about the many sides of every story before (and after) we do so. The entry is definitely worth a read, especially for those that have read both series.

Also, Stephenie Meyer has posted an interesting response to some folks' claims that Bella is an anti-feminist heroine. I'm not really interested in discussing it in-depth, but I agree with Meyer that feminism is about choice and I agree that Bella should be free to make whatever choices she wants (to end her mortal life, to get married at 18, to abstain from a life-saving abortion). Rock on, Bella. Do your thing.

My critique is that I think feminism is something bigger. It's about creating free-will choices for everyone -- men and women -- with less social pressure to choose certain paths. Meyer says,

"I never meant for her [Bella's] fictional choices to be a model for anyone else's real life choices. She is a character in a story, nothing more or less. On top of that, this is not even realistic fiction, it's a fantasy with vampires and werewolves, so no one could ever make her exact choices. ... Also, she's in a situation that none of us has ever been in, because she lives in a fantasy world."

The argument that "this is fiction; it doesn't mean anything in real life" doesn't work for me. I believe that all artistic creation and expression is a reflection of our understanding of 'real' life and impacts the ways we live life. Thus, saying the Twilight stories have no impact on the thinking or living of readers is a fallacy.

Is Bella and the whole Twilight saga an anti-feminist set of writings? I don't know. And I don't think the answer matters. The value of the question is in the conversations that emerge around the ideas and the ways those conversations impact our understanding of ourselves, our world, and the place of feminism in it. -1/3/09

Video Spotlight: Yellow Sticky Notes

Take 2,300 sticky notes, a black pen, and some serious animation/filmmaking talent and what to you get? This vid. British Columbia based artist Jeff Chiba Stearns reflects on the past nine years of his life's journey using the compounded piles of his TO DO lists to get him started. In this heartfelt short film, with music by Genevieve Vincent, Stearns touches on the joy and despair of life, the universal and the personal, the local and the global, the funny and the destructive. It's a touching reminder of the power of reflection.