PETA's at it again, using sexism as a mechanism for advancing their animal-rights advocacy platform. (Read my previous rant on this issue.) The group has launched a campaign against Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen, whose clothing line features fur. Fair enough. The fur industry in inexcusable, and putting pressure on fashion designers to recognize fur as a sign of suffering and not glamor is essential to curbing consumer demand.
So there is plenty to get onto the twins about here. And what approach does PETA take? They launched a Halloween-themed Web site, branding them "Hairy Kate and Trashley Olsen: Fur Tramps" and "Trollsens: Fur Hags From Hell." Terms like "tramps" and "hags," while having ZERO to do with animal cruelty or PETA's mission or any of the pertinent issues at hand, uses gender as a basis for attack. Furthermore, the site's "Dress Up the Olsens" feature, in a clear reference to their struggles with eating disorders, lets users choose clothes for the cartoonish, yet frighteningly-thin women.
What is all this about again? Oh, right, the fur industry. Uh huh. See, I'm not opposed, necessarily, to using the media to shame public figures for reprehensible behavior and to call out those who make money off the suffering of animals. But see, let's keep on topic, at least, because failing to do so puts the whole thing in jeopardy by risking more broad-based public support. If using animal fur in your products is as heinous as we say it is, then that's enough. There is sufficient ammo already. So call them what they are. Animal abusers. Baby bunny killers. Mink murderers. Bad people. Whatever! But tramps? Come on!
I know, "bad people" doesn't make for a shocking headline. But, (and I know I sound like a broken record on this topic), whatever attention such tactics might get is offset by the fact that millions of thoughtful, rational people, who might otherwise be persuaded by sound argument, are instead just repulsed by the sexism and downright perversity of the campaign. Sometimes I question PETA's true intentions: To improve the lives of animals, or to be a media darling? So often I fear their work only serves to further brand vegetarianism as an "extremist" position, alienating those thoughtful individuals who might otherwise be interested in learning more.
Interestingly, in my Animal Ingredients A to Z book, there is an introduction by Bruce Friedrich, the director of vegan outreach for PETA. He makes an impassioned and persuasive plea to vegans not to undermine the greater efforts of the movement by alienating would-be vegans. He says, "PETA wants to show people that veganism is easy and mainstream because that's what is best for animals." Funny, because in this quote, PETA seems to understand that the only way this whole "end animal suffering" thing is going to work is if it appeals to regular, mainstream people as being the right thing to do.
Yet, this current campaign goes out of its way to demonstrate how different PETA and its followers are from regular, mainstream folk. Is alienating and irritating untold numbers of people not exactly what PETA is doing by attacking the Olsen twins on the basis of gender and their history of mental illness? PETA is exchanging the opportunity to criticize an industry and those who participate in it on legitimate grounds for some self-satisfied chuckles at their own cleverness (and maybe garner a mention on PerezHilton.com.) Makes for a fun time around PETA headquarters, no doubt, but I'm not sure how many animals' lives it's ever saved.
