Quote:
Originally Posted by Nancy1999
(Post 2410222)
You've given me something to think about, and you are right, I don't acknowledge all their good, I use to be a big supporter of them, and don't really respond to the "positive" PETA threads anymore. I just believe the pendulum has swung the other way, and they could get accomplish more by different methods.
As an analogy, in the early days of woman's rights, militant bra burners were necessary to get the message out. Some people listened, the message got out there, and the militants were no longer the ones that were most useful in educating others. A softer approach was necessary, because militant woman scare men, and men needed to be part of the evolution. It bothers me today when I read of young woman making fun of those old militant feminists or even saying that they aren't feminists. They have so many choices at wonderful careers; nobody is bashing them for working if they have children, and I don't think they realized how much has changed in the last 30 years, when going on a job interview always included questions pertaining to your plans for marriage, and children.
The pendulum moves back and forth in many areas, and I think many people are open to listening to such things as animal rights, but I just don't think the militant animal activists do the most good any more, and can even do much harm, and in areas that concern me most, I believe they are doing harm to animals. |
VERY interesting. :)
I think PETA thinks there is still a great need for (in some cases) shock value - for "shocking" many folks out of their numb stance toward taking action in the betterment of animal's lives. I
sometimes think PETA's agenda in many shock campaigns is *just* to get people talking. Unfortunately, many find it all SUCH a turn off - that you have to wonder - even IF people are talking, is the real message really getting through? Or, does that not perhaps matter to PETA, as long as folks are talking? I don't know.
I do know that a bajillion people couldn't care less about what happens to a chicken during its lifetime. And now,
despite PETA's alienating methods, a chicken's life *is* talked about and wondered about - and we wonder if that chicken could live less cruelly. Almost all of that is bc of PETA.
I don't know if (enough) people would give 2 hoots about a chicken if it hadn't been rather thrown in their face, so they almost
had to discuss it. I wish Dateline/Oprah/Primetime/etc. would do more factual stories about subjects such as this, so that maybe people
could talk about it, without also having to be distracted by the delivery of the story/issue.
I don't know what the answer is, at all. I *do* think that as long as we're still euthanizing 3 Million animals a year and animal cruelty is still an issue and people still rip the fur off of living dogs, PETA still has a big role in the animal welfare community. BUT, there are many other animal welfare organizations to support if PETA is not for you. Even for me, PETA represents about 5% of what I donate annually to animals. Still, I think they play an important role in keeping animal welfare in the forefront, that it has a trickle down effect to other agencies, and they keep us talking, don't they? :rolleyes:
Believe me, I SO wish we could all spend *more* time actually talking about how to move forward w/ animal welfare...and less time discussing PETA itself, you know? But PETA causes exactly this kind of controversy - and it truly can be so distracting from the issue of animal welfare itself. Ironic, isn't it? :D