Y’all, I got some stuff to say about this subject. I’ve known for a while that PETA is a very hypocritical organization. They always flap their gums about not killing animals while doing anything but saving their lives. I remember seeing a tweet a while back from PETA condemning bullfighting in Spain and immediately rolling my eyes. Read it below.
Watching & cheering as an animal is stabbed & killed isn't tradition, it’s CRUELTY.
Bullfights are rigged in the most horrible ways before bulls even enter the ring—leaving them impaired & vulnerable.
Help @PETA_Latino put an end to this torture! https://t.co/SkJiIVNqHw pic.twitter.com/HaDB9wXsOv
— PETA (@peta) June 12, 2020
I mean…
What’s more, the (now former) Miss Universe Andrea Meza is an advocate for saving the environment through veganism. Sounds peachy, right? That is, until she endorsed PETA to further spread the message. When I found out, I was like, “¿Qué?” Whatever message Andrea was trying to send automatically lost credibility after seeing PETA’s endorsement. Look at the poster.
Beautiful photo shoot, right? Frutas, frutas, ¡la vida me sabe a frutas!
But that PETA label, man. Does Andrea know about the hypocrisy of that organization? Does she know that PETA euthanizes the majority of the animals they receive without trying to find them a home? Does she know that they constantly lie about their operations and create very tasteless campaigns that trivialize world tragedies? If Andrea knew anything about animal rights activism, she would know that PETA DOESN’T GIVE A S**T ABOUT ANIMALS.
TW: Mentions of murder, rape, the Holocaust, misogyny, sexism, ableism, fatphobia, classism, and racism. Read at your own risk.
PETA stands for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (“ethical treatment” my a*s). Founded in 1980 by Ingrid Newkirk, they “advocate” against murdering animals, abusive practices, and strive to “stop animal suffering.” We need to talk about animal cruelty and fight it. It is a big problem in society. The problem is, they prolong animal suffering in various ways and hide the fact that they are giant hypocrites. There are sketchy things about PETA that they want you to ignore. By the end of this article, you’ll be looking for better organizations, and frankly, I’m embarrassed that I only live about an hour away from their headquarters (they’re located in Norfolk, Virginia). Though let’s not make it about me. Let’s make it about PETA and call out their heinous actions RIGHT NOW!
They euthanize the majority of the animals they receive.
When you hear about PETA, you almost always hear about them condemning the abuse of animals, the usage of fur, and calling folks out however they see fit. You see, they are quick to call out and harass celebrities for various reasons, but they don’t want to discuss the fact that PETA euthanizes thousands of innocent animals every year. I repeat, PETA EUTHANIZES THOUSANDS OF INNOCENT ANIMALS EVERY YEAR!
Take the “shelter” in Norfolk, Virginia for example. With how much they speak on protecting animals, you would think that they would work on finding permanent, loving homes for animals. But nope. Very few of them ever get adopted. In fact, out of the 2,650 animals the shelter “cared” for in 2020, they euthanized 1,763 of them, or two-thirds of all the animals they took in, according to John M. Simpson of Duane Morris LLP.
Take into account that the rate in percentage form (66%) is well above the state average for Virginia’s public and private shelters and it is a giant “yikes.” Look at the graph.
How does PETA justify all that? Well, here’s some of what they said on their site in the article “Why We Euthanize.”
“The word “euthanasia” comes from two Greek words—“eu” meaning “good” and “thanatos” meaning “death.” Euthanasia is defined as a merciful release from life in order to end suffering.
“Like any responsible open-admission, socially conscious shelter, PETA provides a peaceful, painless release from life for animals who cannot be safely or humanely placed in a new home or who are sick, injured, dying, or otherwise suffering (physically or psychologically) and whose guardians often can’t afford the service at a private veterinary practice.”
And then they go on to show several photos of animals that had serious health problems and act like their “saviors.” Bulls**t.
I know that there are pet owners that can’t afford treatment for their furry friends, but wouldn’t it be nice if PETA spent a chunk of their donations on helping families find treatment for their pets at little or no cost?
They also justified this by stating that they pressed criminal charges against the perpetrators of different cases. While it is important to call out animal abusers and push hefty charges against them, I fail to see how PETA is any different from animal abusers. And they basically implied ableism by stating that ill dogs and cats are not worthy of vet care and being placed in healthy homes. You see what’s wrong with their logic?
And when it comes to euthanasia, they’ll euthanize any pet, even if they’re perfectly healthy and stable. It’s highly unlikely that every animal they receive is in poor health. Some, but not all. Let’s not forget that two women from PETA had THE NERVE to steal a 9-year-old girl’s chihuahua named Maya and euthanize her. The organization eventually paid $49,000 to the family after an arduous lawsuit and donated $2,000 more to the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA). Even so, that still doesn’t make up for Maya’s death, and they should know better than to steal animals like that.
Their campaigns are not only offensive, they trivialize historical events and social justice issues.
PETA has been called out countless times for their problematic campaigns. They’ve likened women to meat by having models pose nude on posters, with a Pamela Anderson poster stating that “All Animals Have the Same Parts” to promote vegetarianism. And remember the bullfighting tweet shared at the beginning of this article? Before they even drafted it, they made an anti-bullfighting campaign poster by having Spanish model Elen Rivas pose nude with arrows behind her back. They will not be shared in this post, but the article is here.
The way PETA uses women in their campaigns is down-right misogynistic, but that’s not the only thing they’re guilty of. In 2003, they trivialized the Holocaust for their “To Animals, All People Are Nazis” campaign, which Germany banned after comparing Holocaust victims to chickens. They’ve also dehumanized rape victims by comparing them to cows, resorted to fat-shaming to promote vegetarianism, and even spread disinformation through their “got autism?” campaign, inventing claims that dairy consumption is correlated with autism.
There’s many more examples out there. Their sexualization of Santa by inserting that milk caused his impotence, dressing as the KKK to oppose the Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show, comparing African-Americans to livestock with their “Animal Liberation Project”—the list goes on. PETA supporters may defend their tactics by saying that “you need to get the word out there somehow” and condemn censorship. The organization itself said in a blog article:
“Unlike our opposition—which is mostly composed of wealthy industries and corporations—PETA must rely largely on free “advertising” through media coverage. We will do extraordinary things to get the word out about animal cruelty because we have learned from experience that the media, sadly, do not consider the terrible facts about animal suffering alone interesting enough to cover. It is sometimes necessary to shake people up in order to initiate discussion, debate, questioning of the status quo, and, of course, action.
“Thus, we try to make our actions colorful and controversial, thereby grabbing headlines around the world and spreading the message of kindness to animals to thousands—sometimes millions—of people.”
Here, they basically admitted that they will do anything for attention. Not surprising. But why resort to being racist, sexist, misogynist, ableist, and fatphobic in your campaigns when you can just focus on the animals themselves? Stop trivializing human tragedies and genocides for publicity and shock value. Especially since marginalized groups have been dehumanized for centuries.
They constantly lie, spread pseudoscience, and endorse extreme propaganda.
This is supported by the two points above, but why not elaborate on it more? They have a whole history of lying that is easily searchable on the Internet. PETA acts like they’re for all pets, but they discriminate. They and their founder, Ingrid Newkirk, have endorsed the idea of exterminating all pitbulls and have pushed for it based on demoralizing stereotypes and pseudoscience. Though when you search ‘peta supports killing pit bulls,’ this article is the top result.
But Ingrid Newkirk literally wrote a whole article about why pit bulls should go extinct (read here). Nathan J. Winograd composed a great summary on how PETA advocates for their demolition.
The irony is not lost here. It’s interesting how they say and do one thing in one breath but say and do the exact opposite in another breath. You know you can’t trust an organization when they switch sides more often than a coin.
Now more about their lies. They’ve exaggerated about how sheep shearing works by using FAKE sheep in their ad to protest against wool. It’s correct that people have exploited sheep for wool and it is still ongoing as we speak. There’s shearers that shear sheep very rapidly for money, endangering their health. Though when executed properly, it prevents them from overheating, parasites, and keeps them physically healthy. The key is to shear sheep with care and make them feel safe. The exploitation of sheep for wool is very real, but PETA sure has talent in cherry-picking points that fit their agenda and ignoring anything that counters it. Then again, what do you expect from an organization that “advocates” against killing animals while at the same time killing animals?
They make vegetarians and vegans look bad.
This stems back to point #2 about their campaigns being discriminatory. It’s known that their apathy knows no bounds, but their classism showed in 2014 when they promised to cover the water bills of 10 Detroit families ONLY if they went vegan for a month. Very few residents applied, and a woman who did the challenge cited that it motivated her to drop meat while also noting that a vegan diet is more expensive. What PETA fails to recognize is that not every family can afford fresh fruits and vegetables. It takes not just money, but also labor to make a healthy meal for multiple household members. And time is money.
Families making healthy eating feasible is not simple, and not even food stamp benefits is enough for low-income families. The Biden Administration has increased food stamps funding to aid families during this COVID pandemic, but the amount is still not enough. On top of that, food pantries are struggling to keep up with demand, especially as the unemployment rate increases. These problems existed long before the pandemic, but with inflation in the mix, it shows you just how little society has progressed as a whole.
Healthwise, veganism is also not for everyone. While healthy eating is important, veganism can fuel eating disorders, nutrient deficiencies, nutrient overconsumption, and other problems. Nutritional needs vary from person to person, and what works for one person may not work for another. And that’s okay. There are factors such as income, lifestyle, and family size that influence one’s ability to maintain a healthy diet. Although, it is possible to go vegetarian or vegan on certain occasions and eat meat on others. Some people are vegetarians at home but meat eaters at restaurants. It all depends on the person, and pushing vegetarianism or veganism as “one-size-fits-all” does not help the cause.
It’s not just PETA’s classism that makes vegetarians and vegans look bad. In 2012, they made a campaign titled “Boyfriend Went Vegan and Knocked the Bottom Out of Me,” or as abbreviated, BWVAKTBOOM. A video for this campaign titled “Boyfriend Went Vegan” showed a woman with a neck brace walking home before placing celery into the refrigerator. One could look at her and assume she was abused, but reading between the lines, it turned out she desired more sex. PETA thought it was a humorous way to promote veganism by stating that BWVAKTBOOM is “a painful condition that occurs when boyfriends go vegan and can suddenly bring it like a tantric porn star.” In other words, they intended to send the message that going vegan can increase one’s sex drive, enhancing sex for themselves and the other partner.
But what is funny about domestic or sexual violence? Literally nothing. Regardless of PETA’s “intentions,” this ad trivialized the issues of domestic and sexual violence. To even joke about how veganism can arouse someone like that paints vegans in a bad light and contributes to the culture of pardoning abusers and sexual predators for their actions. Though considering that PETA has frequently incorporated misogyny into their campaigns, it’s not surprising.
At some point, PETA supporters may criticize this article for various reasons. Of course we should talk about and fight animal cruelty. Of course we should be presented with information about how our actions impact animals. However, there are better ways to do that than to do things like put videos of animal abuse on porn sites and create inappropriate comics for kids. Now that you’ve read this article, you may be wondering, “Why is PETA allowed to continue operating?” The short answer: money. The long answer: money, their marketing, and their celebrity endorsements. The fact that so many celebrities have endorsed PETA is simply appalling and brings up a bigger debate on if large charities are really contributing to the goodwill of humanity or fueling capitalism. Those like Alicia Silverstone, Billie Eilish, and Kate del Castillo have endorsed it recently, and to be honest, it makes them lose all credibility for their causes.
Would any of them still endorse PETA if they knew about their high euthanization rates? Would any of them still endorse PETA if they knew that they’re discriminatory? Would any of them still endorse PETA if they knew about their hypocrisy and problematic history? The thing is, the information is out there. It’s that celebs are performative and not willing to do their research before making endorsements. They’re wealthy, and the bad thing is that many of them are the same types that yell “Black Lives Matter” and that they’re for human rights, so there’s really no excuse for their actions.
On Andrea Meza, the same thing applies. Although she’s from Mexico, PETA has reached people in dozens of countries, and thus, she is not immune from criticism. The same questions I asked above apply to her as well. She’s not so young that she couldn’t come up with a cohesive answer. Though considering that she’s the same person who said to forget about politics when it came to hosting the Miss Universe pageant in Israel, she’d probably be unable to. I do not know much about the Israel/Palestine conflict. However, given the grave severity of the crisis, her response reeks of naivete and privilege. Andrea said to AP News that “she was “just a girl,” from a small town in Mexico who was not a “perfect and flawless” beauty queen.” She said she “had worked hard to become Miss Universe and that the competition wasn’t only about parading women in bikinis but also about testing their intelligence.”
Andrea, there’s people that are dying.
You would think that a “Miss Universe” has greater critical-thinking skills and awareness of world issues. Nope. It’s a position that mainly benefits women with pretty privilege. If Andrea was serious about philanthropy (as for every celebrity), she would know to research charities beforehand and disaffiliate from an endorsement upon finding out its dirty laundry.
PETA is the Autism Speaks of animal rights activism. They both push propaganda but literally do the exact opposite of what they tell others to do.
Veganism as a way of saving the environment is debatable in itself. There are articles that state that there are other ways to care for the environment, such as buying & eating locally-sourced meat that was not abused beforehand. While meat-eating has become a moral debate, this Simpsons clip could single-handedly prove that it’s moral in less than 30 seconds.
In other words, people eat tasty animals and have done so for millennia. And don’t kid yourselves, y’all. If a cow ever got the chance, he’d eat us and everyone we care about.
Also, it’s time for you to remind yourself that just because someone is famous, doesn’t mean that they’re highly intelligent and can be trusted on any major issue.
Sources:
https://www.peta.org/blog/euthanasia/
https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/17/peta-sorry-for-taking-girls-dog-putting-it-down
https://www.businessinsider.com/peta-shocking-controversial-ads-2011-10?amp
https://petakillsanimals.com/the-ten-most-offensive-and-misleading-ads-that-peta-has-produced/
https://www.peta.org/about-peta/faq/why-does-peta-use-controversial-tactics/
https://www.britishwool.org.uk/assets/files/factsheets/2-Why-we-need-to-shear-sheep.pdf
https://www.farmsanctuary.org/news-stories/why-do-we-shear-sheep-faqs/
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/peta-detroit-go-vegan-month-well-pay-your-water-bill-n168896
https://prospect.org/economy/boost-in-food-stamps-but-hunger-remains/
https://apnews.com/article/food-banks-hunger-inflation-a3d8f4ed0c4842fc3927710f11207c9e
https://www.cleaneatingkitchen.com/vegan-diet-dangers-health/
