Fat Pregnant Woman = Pig
February 28th, 2008
A PETA protest as reported on Perez Hilton, sent in by Donna. (The larger size may be NSFW; hopefully this small version is okay.)
I have no words.
[ETA: From the comments, I've learned that the woman is actually pregnant, hence the "Mother's Day" slogan, and the protest isn't necessarily going for fat = pig at all! I might have just had a knee-jerk reaction.]
Posted by mo pie
Email us
Hey y’all,
Just so you know, the vast majority of animal rights folks (and PETA supporters) are not whackjobs who behave offensively towards others in public and call it activism.
That said, I think it’s pretty sad how people can so completely miss the point when they say things along the general lines of “PETA is so cruel for subjecting children to graphic images”–um, that’s not cruel, it’s the truth. These things really happen, and it’s ridiculous that people are more worried about their kids being traumatized by *seeing* suffering than they are about the fact of the suffering in the first place. Shall we stifle all information about genocide, rape, etc, because it’s too disturbing for people to have to know about? Or do you think it’s better to try to prevent the suffering, even if that means people have to “suffer” the secondary trauma of knowing what happens to others?
I’m sorry, but if a PETA “whackjob” tried to do this in a public place where my children played, there would be words. That is inappropriate. Would you sit your child down in front of the computer and show them porn because “these things really happen”? Of course not! In my mind, there is no difference. PETA also handed out fliers to children at the nutcracker that depicted a full color flyer of a woman stabbing a rabbit in the stomach. The title? “Your Mommy Kills Animals.” Now, just think about how traumatizing that would be for a 5-year-old. Horrible! PETA spends more time using shock-tactics than actually doing anything.
criss: I agree, most of us who support animal rights, eat vegetarian, etc. are not whackjobs — but unfortunately the PETA folks have been very successful in painting us that way, haven’t they? The fact that we feel the need to point out our relative sanity proves this point.
And I do see your point in regard to the suffering, but again, it’s a matter of what will be EFFECTIVE. Telling the truth about feedlot farming to an 8-year-old eating a happy meal is not effective; they don’t have the intellectual tools to understand it, nor do they have much control over what they get to eat.
So, upsetting them with slaughterhouse photos accomplishes precisely what, then? I’ll answer my own question: it gets PETA more press coverage (which only makes animal rights activists look like mean petty assholes and therefore does nothing to save the animals), it makes parents angry (which makes them less responsive to the animal rights message and therefore does nothing to save the animals), and it upsets a kid who doesn’t have enough information or the maturity to understand the context of the images they just saw (which does nothing to save the animals.)
Of course we shouldn’t stifle all upsetting truths about what happens in the world. But let’s put this back in the context of the original discussion: would you honestly show a child images of genocide, rape, etc. in the name of helping them understand the truth about what happens in the world? Really? What would that accomplish, exactly?
Hmmm. Yes, on the one hand, but on the other…I think you may not be giving kids enough credit. I mean, all kids are different, but I personally became veg NOT because of example–in fact, I delayed my mom becoming veg b/c I refused to do so, and she couldn’t deal with cooking two separate meals every time she cooked–but because of PETA literature. Not the most graphic stuff, obviously, and I’ve still never watched some of the most graphic slaughterhouse videos (though I’m certainly glad those things were documented), but learning the truth about what happened, and the truth that all animals have personalities, etc.
It’s not that uncommon for kids to become vegetarians or vegans when their parents aren’t, and even against their parents’ wishes. I don’t know how many of those continue on past the rebellious stage, but certainly children can be influenced regardless of whether their parents are. I’ve even heard of parents become vegetarian (or at least cutting down on meat and becoming more veg-friendly in their cooking) to support their kids.
I think insulating kids from ickiness–against animals, women, poor people, whatever–deprives society of a powerful voice for change. No, we shouldn’t traumatize children for political ends, but I also don’t believe we should shelter them as much as we do.
All that said, this is based on my experiences as a child, not as a parent (I have no children).
I agree with we shouldn’t insulate kids entirely, and I certainly don’t wish to suggest that kids aren’t capable or understanding or reasoning or making informed choices, to a degree. But in this specific case, the Happy Meal target audience is too widely varied to be certain that the kids seeing it are of an age and in a position to understand and act on the slaughterhouse image. The difference between a five year-old and a nine year-old, for example, is staggering in this regard — I’m no expert on the topic, and I don’t have kids either, but wouldn’t you agree, based in kids you’ve known?
And certainly kids do make their own decisions, and parents are left to accommodate or not. I grew up on a small hobby farm raising free-range chickens, and I was in 4-H, so I understood from a very young age “where meat comes from.” But it’s not like my mom and dad made me watch him swing the axe when I was six, just to prove the point. And further, if I had tried to give up meat when I was a kid, my parents would not have accommodated that choice — they grew up during the Depression and didn’t have much sympathy with “picky eating.” So I could have made a decision, sure, but I didn’t have the agency to act on it. Some kids would have better luck in that regard, but not if their parents feel they are being manipulated by a bunch of “whackjobs.” You see what I mean?
I guess what makes me angry about PETA’s approach is that once upon a time I was able to rely upon them to get useful information — pamphlets about cruelty-free cosmetics, for example. Stuff that actually helped me make more informed decisions about the effect our day-to-day decisions can make. And I could hand it to friends without having them think I was bonkers. Now, even if they do provide that information (and I see that they still do on their website), most people won’t seek it out or accept it because they can’t see past the tasteless PR stunts.
They’ve destroyed the credibility of the information they provide, making even their most sensitive, well-researched, thoughtful information suspect. Take another look at most of the comments to this thread: do you think that any one of those commenters would take a second look at any information with the PETA logo on it?
In any case, thanks for a great discussion!
On the one hand, I agree that PETA drives some people away (and that it’s necessary to be careful about knowing your audience, especially with kids). But then…I know I can’t be the only person who’s had the experience of being irritated or offended by something, but having it plant a seed in my brain, so that later I discover that it’s led me to think about things I wouldn’t previously have considered.
In fact, this happened to me with the FA stuff. I first heard about a fat woman standing up for her right to be treated as a human being probably fifteen or so years ago, when I was in my early teens. I was already fat, and had been since early childhood, but instead of being excited to find out that maybe I didn’t deserve the assorted humiliations of being a fat kid…I was incredulous at the idea that anyone could believe fat wasn’t digusting! I thought, OF COURSE fat people deserve humiliation! But in the intervening years I’ve figured it out, and I don’t think I would have without that initial shocked, repulsed reaction.
So I’m not 100% convinced that you can say “PETA upsets people, and that does more harm than good.” Sometimes upsetting people is a good long-term investment (and sometimes it isn’t, I’m just not sure you can tell the difference at a glance).