PETA

The name "PETA" evokes a variety of emotions from its supporters, the neutral-minded, and from those who vehemently oppose its messages. For some, PETA is a tireless machine working to enforce animals rights everywhere, while others feel as those the organization over steps its limits in an offensive and truth distorting manner. It is almost impossible however, to argue that its messages are not powerful and effective.

PETA's Internet homepage is organized and attention grabbing. Instantly, the first three images our eyes are drawn to are a picture of Madonna in fur, a small white rabbit, and a rat looking at us with pleading eyes. You wouldn't think that rats could do that, except that PETA has made it happen. While we may not know how these three images are connected, the importance is that we know that they are and that they appeal to us in one way or another.

Following the homepage to a wide selection of videos, we can pick our choice of topic: cruel companies, domestic animal issues, torture for research, and celebrity faces. As we watch the myriad of videos, our emotions are torn apart, our opinions run up and down, and our stomachs turn inside out. Is it "right" that they show rabbits having their fur torn right off their bodies? What about the kittens and dogs that are unable to open their eyes? They are our beloveds! Is it ethical that we are audience to the spectacle of cows getting their necks slashed once, twice, three times? That is our food!

I believe that PETA is justified in showing their videos. After all, we are not a captive audience to their website. We are able to choose where we click, what we read, and how often. Their message is so polarized because it has to be. They give animals human characteristics so that we grow attached to them and relate to their predicament. Not all people would be persuaded by plain facts, perhaps because we imagine the countless numbers of animals out in the world. Much like statistics about human beings, we are less persuaded by large numbers than by individual stories and suffering.

Something that I find interesting that PETA uses as a tool is the use of "celebrity." Stardom is utilized in order to bring attention to a problem, whether a particular celebrity is encouraging or discouraging certain acts. For instance, their website hosts a list of "Worst Dressed Celebrities of 2009" where we see images of "Hairy-Kate and Trashley" Olson wearing fur vests. In contrast, PETA also uses celebrity to fight against the use of fur for fashion - most notably in pictorial pieces of nude starlets. Alicia Silverstone is featured in PETA's "first-ever naked vegetarian testimonial" and Girl Next Door Playboy model, Holly poses naked while seductively saying that she'd "rather go naked than wear fur." Additionally, the organization's "banned" Super Bowl ad uses sexy women to suggest that studies have found that vegetarians have better sex.

This appeal to nudity and sex is the least effective of all of PETA's campaigns but it does what the organization does best - grab attention. It seems as though PETA strives to shock and awe us. To survive, it must continue to bring horror to its supporters, continually introduce those who may not know, and highlight what opponents might be missing. I think that if a group or individual is going to make an effort to persuade other human beings that animals are important on all levels, it naturally takes some drastic measures. Without these drastic measures, perhaps we wouldn't consider the effects of our actions.