Gary Francione Calls PETA's State of the Union Undress 'Sexist'

I would like to add my voice to those who support vegan education as the best way to help nonhuman animals . No matter what anyone's personal view on this particular striptease, I still haven't found any real evidence that it is doing anything to promote animal rights . I would like to respond to Richard Turgeon's comment regarding the article detailing an undercover investigation at Land o' Lakes.
Mr Turgeon asks: "Was the brave person who took this undercover footage “self-serving”? Was PETA serving itself or Land O’ Lakes by posting it? Did it “stop being about animals a long time ago” for this person?
I hope this explains why—at least at the present time—it’s not a necessity for me to call myself an abolitionist and absolutist at the same time."
Please forgive me but I don't understand his last sentence but anyway, regarding this objection; with all due respect I would like to suggest that the point is being missed. We promote vegan education and reject the notion that it is "absolutist" anymore than human rights advocates are absolutist in their demand for the end of the exploitation of and rights violations of human animals (which, as animal rights advocates is something we also demand and advocate for).
I point to the last paragraph in the aforementioned article: "PETA is calling on Land O'Lakes to implement and enforce a 12-point animal welfare plan to govern all cooperative members' dairy-farming operations, which will eliminate some of the worst abuses to cows raised for their milk. Write to Land O'Lakes President Christopher Policinski now and urge him to implement the plan today. Of course, the best way for you to help prevent cows from suffering these abuses is to go vegan and stop consuming dairy products. Explore our "Vegetarian Starter Kit" for recipes and tips to get started today."

Ok. Where to begin? Their first action is to ask for a useless welfare reform that does not in any way shape or form represent animal rights. Then they say "of course you should really go vegan". Well if "of course" then it should be the first and only point made. Then after saying go vegan, they point to a " vegetarian " starter kit. This is not helping. It is totally confusing for one thing and perpetuates speciesism which is terrible.
Even worse, they have provided a form letter which is headed "Please Implement PETA's Animal Welfare Plan" then ends with".......Please require that this farm and all your suppliers meet the animal welfare guidelines set forth by PETA. These reasonable guidelines include prohibiting controversial tail-docking and electric prods, improving sanitation and cow bedding on farms, and ensuring that sick and injured cows receive timely veterinary care.
Until you do your part to stop cruelty to animals and meet all PETA's demands, I will refuse to buy any Land O'Lakes products and encourage my friends and family to do the same."

That is insanely confusing. I can't even begin to point out all the confusion. Stop cruelty? As we all know, stopping cruelty means ending use, and ending use means veganism . So aside from one throw away comment, only made AFTER the "Peta 12 step welfare plan" suggesition, then a link to a "vegatarian" starter kit (on an article against exposing the diary industry) there is no mention of right's violations and the solution to this which is veganism. This letter is all about PETA. So maybe the person who made the video thought it would be used in a way that is "all about the animals" but I respectfully disagree that it is being used that way.
So, all we are saying is, if you care about animal rights, be your own leader, and promote veganism. PETA promotes PETA. And this striptease is just another disturbing example of self promotion. The point is, is it helping the animal's who are being exploited? The answer is no, and that is not an opinion, read their letter. If you think their "PETA animal welfare" is helping the cows exploited for their milk you are very much buying into something that is inherently speciesist and is actually HURTING the cause of animal rights and I strongly suggest that people research a bit more deeply, think about it a bit more critically, taking personality and ego out of it, and realize that this is not an opinion, but is a call for critical analysis based on empirical evidence and inherent truths. Do your own research, that is what I did! And you know what? The facts speak for themselves. The truth speaks for itself. Sorry this comment was so long.

I would like to address a few points that have arisen in this thread, not because they are valuable in and of themselves, but because they are representative of a prevalent, but nonetheless unsound, way of thinking.

The claim that abolitionists waste time “bashing” PeTA is problematic, for a couple of reasons. As a general matter, it constitutes a misdescription: disagreement is not “bashing”; criticism is not “divisive.” Second, vegan education implies a critique of the welfarist paradigm ( welfare reform, “humane” animal products, welfare groups and so on). Therefore, abolitionists’ criticizing PETA cannot be assimilated to the concept of an opportunity cost in the way that one can and should assimilate welfarists’ promoting welfarism (instead of veganism ) to this concept, for, as I said, critiquing welfarism is part of vegan education.

Welfarists (1) shift the focus from Francione’s arguments to his personality and delivery, claiming that he is arrogant and therefore alienating (in his delivery), which they then use as an excuse for dismissing abolitionism; and (2) assimilate their dismissing abolitionism to the concept of “independent thinking”, claiming for example that one should not agree with any theory in its entirety or that no professor who was an educator would want or, what is worse, demand that we agree with everything he says. But someone either thinks Francione’s theory is sound or they do not. If they think it is sound, (1) amounts to the absurd claim that it is okay for us to knowingly do the wrong thing if we don’t like person who promotes the right thing, and (2) that rejecting sound arguments is (or can be) part of independent thinking (as opposed to irrationality). If they think it is unsound, (1) amounts to the absurd claim that it is okay to reject Francione’s theory for a logically irrelevant reason (connected with his personality); and, as for (2), it does not show that Francione’s theory is unsound and so cannot serve as a valid basis for dismissing it.

As for the claim that Francione demands agreement with “every facet” of his theory, this does not embody independent thinking but rather irrationality, in that it merely instructs us not to agree – in advance – with any theory 100%, irrespective of its truth or falsity; and so doing incoherently makes an intellectual virtue out of disagreeing with theories, or aspects of them, that may be true. If a theory is sound there is nothing wrong with agreeing with every facet of it.

In sum: the reasons embodied in (1) and (2) are clearly bad/irrelevant reasons for dismissing Francione’s theory. They merely provide – and are intended to provide - welfarists with an excuse for dismissing abolitionism without going to the trouble of addressing it.

Turg2323:, you write:
''My post asks the question of how useful it is to repeatedly bash PETA , HSUS, etc., etc. (i.e. any animal welfare group that’s not 100% sanctioned by abolitionists like you and me)... ''

No one can stop you from calling yourself an abolitionist. But if you have read any of Francione's work , as you claim, you clearly haven't understood a thing of it. Otherwise, you would be aware that, according to the abolitionist position,
--''[t]here really is no way to talk about abolition except as the opposition to animal welfare... When there is a prevailing paradigm, any alternative position must be framed in terms of opposition to the prevailing paradigm.''(to quote Francione from a message board)
– welfare reform further entrenches animals ' status as property and leads further away from the abolition of animal exploitation;
– treating animals as property is a violation of their right (the right of every sentient being, human or nonhuman) not to be treated as such;
– any campaign that demands and promotes anything less than, or different from, not to treat animals as property, i.e., to go vegan , reinforces their status as property and, thereby, the violation of their right not to be treated as such.

When someone makes deals, i.e., mutually beneficial agreements, with someone else who violates the rights of children by sexually exploiting them, about ''nicer'' ways of doing it, instead of unequivocally demanding and promoting an immediate end of that practice (in a situation where this does not involve taking any risk for one's own life and security , like under a totalitarian regime), the former is morally no less an exploiter than is the latter, and what they do is no less violative of the victims' rights. The same applies in the context of animal advocacy: Those who make deals with industry about how to exploit animals more ''humanely'' are no less an exploiter than those who torture and slaughter them.

If you understood this, it would also be clear to you that supporting an '' animal rights '' organization that violates the rights of those it claims to act on behalf of makes as much sense as supporting a self-proclaimed human rights organization that participates in the violation of human rights.

If you read Francione's work without being prepared to deliberately misrepresent it, you would neither suggest, as you do, that he thinks ''the world will change suddenly'' if we promote the goal of abolition by means that are consistent with it, nor that Francione questions the sincerity or moral integrityof all of PETA's activists in trying to achieve progress on behalf of animals.

If you tackled the abolitionist approach seriously, you would consider its basic assumptions that welfare reform makes animal exploitation economically more efficient, i.e., more profitable, and appear morally more acceptable, and, for structural reasons, due to animals' being property, do not, and cannot, result in significant protection of their interests, including their interest in not suffering.
If you were serious about these issues, you would address the arguments put forward here by Francione and others, instead of dismissing them, and instead of attacking James for his way of replying to Alistair which was appropriate given the latter's vacuous assertions and absurd accusations (''stifling dissent'').

The fact that you obviously don't understand the abolitionist position is less indicative of an insufficient level of intellectual faculty, as understanding Francione's work does not require more than average intelligence, than of a (vested) interest in supporting PETA. In any event, I always appreciate the opportunity to have an exchange with an advocate of new welfarism, in public places, at least, as it is a great way of educating others. Having said that, I'm not sure I will spend any time on addressing a reply on your part, unless it contains more substance than your previous posts.

Karin

P. S.:
This comment is not meant as a reply on behalf of Francione to whom the post I was quoting from is addressed, in case anyone wonders.

And, for the record, there is nothing absolutist (in the pejorative sense of that word) about rejecting welfarist reform. It is speciesist as a moral matter (we would never support those sort of measures in the human context) and useless as an empirical matter (it is always linked with efficiency and it makes people feel better about a nonrights situation which fosters continued and increased exploitation). Again, this is not my opinion; it is an empirical fact: welfarism is correlated with a massive increase in animal use.

And, finally, regarding your comment to the effect that silliness is worse than sexism , it is deeply troubling in that it trivializes discrimination against women . Sexism, along with other prejudices like racism and speciesism, are of course different in kind and worse that anything that could seriously be characterized as mere silliness, and it is very disturbing when animal advocates deny this out of corrupt fidelity to PeTA (or for any other reason (s), for that matter).

To sum up: let's put all our time and resources into clear and unequivocal vegan education . It’s the only way to go.

It seems I couldn't reply directly to Mr. Francione's reply above to my original post, so this would be my response:

Mr. Francione,

I don't disagree with your first point, something I acknowledged in my blog post, so we don’t need to cover that again. I don’t agree with certain PETA tactics like pie-throwing (or any kind of violence in general) because I feel it alienates people and therefore undermines animal rights . I’m more offended by PETA’s State of the Union Undress more because it’s tacky, insincere and silly than I do because it’s sexist , but I’d prefer that any message on behalf of animal rights share none of these qualities. My post asks the question of how useful it is to repeatedly bash PETA, HSUS, etc., etc. (i.e. any animal welfare group that’s not 100% sanctioned by abolitionists like you and me) and on that point, I’m still not convinced that doing so benefits the animals we’re all supposedly trying to emancipate.

Regarding your second point, there’s a lot to address. I have indeed spent a good deal of time reading your blog and website materials, and plan to spend more time digging deeper. Unlike you, I’m certainly not an expert on these topics and am very grateful for your leadership and work in this area. I understand the paradigm you’re calling for, but how realistic do you think it is that the world will change suddenly in terms of regarding animals as property, as opposed to gradually? PETA makes the argument for McDonald’s to adopt CAK not to help McDonald’s business but to reduce the pain and misery suffered by chickens. PETA understands that this “welfarist” argument is required for McDonald’s to make the change—today, not in some imaginary, far-off world where animals are no longer regarded as property. To suggest that PETA exists solely to “fill its coffers” and secretly exists to help corporations increase their capacity for inflicting pain and making money seems almost too ridiculous to entertain. It just seems like nefarious conspiracy theory and I’m just not convinced it’s rooted in fact. I myself have protested with PETA against Ringling Brothers to stop them from using animals in their circuses, and I can assure you that the volunteers I walked with were not present—some of them night after night—to help Ringling sell more tickets or treat the animals in question more politely. I suppose I’m less interested in the notion that “welfarist” campaigns like PETA’s CAK campaign “moves animals away from the property paradigm” than I am in the fact that it’s tangibly, realistically reducing the suffering of these innocent victims of the very corporate greed that PETA understands as their sole motivating factor.

On your third point, I was not aware that you worked with PETA and I don’t think I suggested you knew less than anyone else about them. You call them a “self-serving corporation” and “it stopped being about animals a long time ago,” but I don’t think anyone who’s worked closely with some of the leaders I’ve worked with and seen speak would be convinced of this. These people work tirelessly and without the benefits and perks enjoyed by greedy CEOs and executives on behalf of animals, and surely you must see that you and PETA have at least that in common.

I leave you with this link from PETA’s website.

https://secure.peta.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=2515

Was the brave person who took this undercover footage “self-serving”? Was PETA serving itself or Land O’ Lakes by posting it? Did it “stop being about animals a long time ago” for this person?

I hope this explains why—at least at the present time—it’s not a necessity for me to call myself an abolitionist and absolutist at the same time.

Rich (if I may)

I respectfully implore you to show mercy and spare me any more of your empty cant. If you ever again feel the urge to set yourself up as the arbiter of what is, and what is not, acceptable discourse, then could you please exercise some of the restraint that you so knowingly urge on others - and step away from your computer.

With all possible respect,

James

New welfarists often defend corporations like PeTA on the grounds that the latter “do some good” in that they are convincing at least some people to go vegan . This is an odd position for self-proclaimed “pragmatists” and “realists” to take, to be sure, in that it evinces: firstly, a blithe indifference to effectiveness by eschewing the imperative obligation to always advocate maximally on behalf of animals in favour of the uselessly sentimental requirement to merely “do some good” for them; secondly, a disengaged unconcern for the way corporations like PeTA necessarily have to use a significant portion of their donations - which could otherwise be spent on vegan education - in sustaining the fullness of their bloated bureaucracies; and thirdly, a disturbing acceptance of the fact that, by diverting time and resources from vegan education to welfarist campaigns, welfarist corporations impose a massive opportunity cost on social justice. In the light of all that, the incoherence of the notion that pragmatists and realists, that is, those who are concerned above all with bringing about effective results and efficient outcomes, should support , or at least are excused in supporting, corporations like PeTA because the latter “do some go good” or have “converted” some vegans should be obvious enough.

The counterargument seems to go something like this: if corporations like PeTA did not promote welfarism they would not elicit as many donations (from the public) and hence would have less money to spend on vegan education. Hence, so this line of argument goes, it is okay for corporations like PeTA to promote at least some welfarism. The problem with this, or rather one of them, is that corporations like PeTA do not and cannot engage in any vegan education, not, at any rate, without negating themselves; for vegan education necessarily involves a critique of the prevailing welfarist paradigm, since, to put it bluntly, we cannot show the public why they should go vegan without also showing them why they should not consume “humane” animal products, or why they should support abolition without also showing them why they should not support regulation.

Secondly, like a self-help book , the welfarist corporations foster the problem and then proffer themselves as the solution. That is, they relentlessly delude the public into thinking that welfarism is an indispensable necessity whereas veganism is at best an optional extra for saints and heroes, and at worst, a manifestation of fanaticism, while at the same effectively claiming that they have no choice but to promote welfarism because the public are unreceptive to veganism. As such, the welfarist corporations not only opportunistically exploit the phenomenon of unreceptivity to veganism: at one and the same time they define and create that phenomenon and cynically use it as a means of self-confirmation.

The upshot of the foregoing is that the way to act maximally on behalf of animals, as genuine pragmatists and realists should, as well as to increase support for veganism by the public is to reject the circular and cynical logic of the welfarist corporations in favour of the clear and unequivocal logic of abolitionism.