priorities - Jezebel

posts about #priorities more →
Animal Rights First, An End To Violence Against Women Later?
The More You Know

Your version of Internet Explorer is not supported. Please upgrade to the most recent version in order to view comments.

Dsmvwl Admin Promote to frontpage Approve user Ban user ×

MilointheMeadow
06/30/09

In reply to Animal Rights First, An End To Violence Against Women Later?
As a vegetarian and supporter of animal rights and welfare, I'm at a loss. It seems we can't win. Obviously, this ad is offensive and shocking. Then again, if the ad showed fish being gutted, would it elicit any compassion from the (meat-eating) viewer? Probably not. Would more conservative tactics persuade more people to join the ranks of vegetarians? Doubtful. How do we do this? What is the best way?

I try to keep my vegetarian viewpoints to myself like a good little girl, and my hope is that I can promote vegetarianism by example. But just because I have compassion for animals does not mean I don't also care about people - there is no Compassion Quota in my heart. I just can't support suffering for any species, especially if it's for my own gain.

Fish feel pain - gutting aside, I can't fathom what a hook through my cheek might feel like..

[www.livescience.com]

[news.bbc.co.uk]
Reply

MilointheMeadow was starred MilointheMeadow was unstarred

MeganGlass 就是一个古代的三明治
06/30/09

In reply to Animal Rights First, An End To Violence Against Women Later?
I've bludgeoned halibut to death with a spiked bat. The spike goes in their brain and kills them quickly (and more humanely than just letting them suffocate in the open air) so then they aren't flopping all over your boat. I've also gutted a live fish. It really wasn't as traumatic as this ad makes it out to be. Those innards scoop right out in one pass and the fish is dead. It doesn't take more than 30 seconds. This ad is ridiculous. Having taken the swipe at it that it deserves, I must say that as a (crappy) metaphor, it really isn't trying to depict violence against women. I totally understand the literalist interpretation of it, and why so many find it so awful, but they're being anything but subtle about their symbolism. I think a more apt criticism might be "You guys were really reaching there. You had to know how loaded that imagery was, in spite of where you were trying to take it. And tossing that out there for the sake of a pun is in horrible taste. Furthermore, overstating the suffering of fish like that is totally asinine, and you just won the fail contest."

And that's all I have to say about that.
Reply

greengrey
06/30/09

@MeganGlass 就是一个古代的三明治: THANK YOU! I'm getting tired of people who know nothing about fishing talking about it.
Reply

greengrey was starred greengrey was unstarred

MeganGlass 就是一个古代的三明治
06/30/09

@greengrey (raidersofthelostSTAR): Any group with an axe to grind is going to spin the hell out of the facts to suit their purposes, no matter which side of a particular issue they happen to be on, you know? It always seems to be the people who actually participate in whatever the controversial thing is whose voices get drowned out. I grew up in Alaska, where you quickly realize that if you catch a big enough fish, it's far kinder to poke a hole through its head. Also just about everyone goes out in the winter at some point and puts themself in the position of having to keep moving or literally freeze to death, which imparts a lot of perspective about how impersonal nature is and what is and isn't a horrible way to die.
Reply

Ailanthus-altissima
06/30/09

In reply to Animal Rights First, An End To Violence Against Women Later?
I like this ad. I think it is a good ad. It shocks you and makes you realize how inhumane fishing actually is. I know fish aren't people, but bludgeoning them and then gutting them while they slowly die is still pretty brutal.

And I don't see this as promoting violence against women, or saying it is OK. They are playing on "stripping" (which it looks like is the term for killing those fish), knowing that seeing a woman killed would be very shocking and very obviously seen as "bad."

It is disturbing. It should be disturbing.
Reply

SylvanSylph
06/30/09

@Ailanthus-altissima: But do you see how, by showing her stripping, the ad turns her into an object and thus makes it less bad that she is gutted in the end? Don't you think it would be infinitely more horrifying if it had shown a little kid playing or something? There is a reason beyond the lame pun that they decided to show the murder of a stripper.
Reply

SylvanSylph was starred SylvanSylph was unstarred

Ailanthus-altissima
06/30/09

@SylvanSylph: Well, I think that there is a taboo against showing children killed. Even on cop/crime shows, children may be seen dead, but never killed. I get your point though - there are many other horrifying things that they could have done that would have drawn a parallel and shocked people.

I don't know that I agree completely on the stripping. They seemed to be showing something a bit more burlesque. I don't want to get into a stripping vs. burlesque debate, but I thin there can be a general consensus that by and large, they are viewed differently by the public. Given that, I do think that the pun was the driving force of the ad.

Still, I think you raise some really worthwhile points. I'll need to rewatch the ad, consider the alternatives and think about what you've said. Thank you!
Reply

bluebears
06/30/09

@SylvanSylph: holy shit! THIS. Really is it so fucking inconceivable to people on this website that there is such a thing as a larger culture that perpetuates violence and objectification of women? There's a reason this was done to a woman, there's a reason why there was such a prolonged stripping sequence. This things don't take place in a fucking vacuum. JESUS.

/throws hands in air, stomps away.
Reply

bluebears was starred bluebears was unstarred

bluebears
06/30/09

@Ailanthus-altissima: also, just to say, above temper tantrum isn't directed at you its general frustration.
Reply

bluebears was starred bluebears was unstarred

Ailanthus-altissima
07/01/09

@bluebears: I understand. I sometimes feel the same way when people cannot seem to imagine that for some people, all sentient life is important and has value, just because it is a life.

It's funny - this post touches on two topics that are incredibly charged, and I feel like neither side (myself included), is able to look clearly at the other. I sometimes wish posts like this had comments disabled for an hour - take a time to think about what is said and then respond.

I like the comment from Sylvan up there because while I completely agree that there is a larger culture that perpetuates violence and objectification of women (I took your words), I have no thought about how much of that was done intentionally by this commercial and to what end.
Reply

TheCatlady
06/30/09

In reply to Animal Rights First, An End To Violence Against Women Later?
I disagree. I don't see this as giving violence against women a "pass" whatsoever. What it does do is make a *comparison* that we can relate to and understand, and gutting a fish OR a woman (or any living being for that matter) while still alive is horrific and incredibly cruel. This ad certainly gets your attention and the imagery was very upsetting, which is as it should be. A "friendly" reminder that this practice is horrible would not be half as effective at making the point.
Reply

TheCatlady was starred TheCatlady was unstarred

inabook
06/30/09

@TheCatlady: But the main reaction it gets isn't "I can't believe we do that to fish" It's "Fuck you, you bastards, I'm not a fish, and how dare you try to say the suffering of a fish is on the same scale as the suffering of a woman".

Really, it just makes me want to find the product they're trying to warn against, and buy it.
Reply

inabook was starred inabook was unstarred

TheCatlady
06/30/09

@inabook: But the main reaction it gets isn't "I can't believe we do that to fish" It's "Fuck you, you bastards, I'm not a fish, and how dare you try to say the suffering of a fish is on the same scale as the suffering of a woman".

I disagree. That may be *your* reaction but you can't say that it will be the reaction of everyone else. I certainly didn't have that reaction. I got the point immediately about how cruel this is to do to any living being because I didn't make it about me.
Reply

TheCatlady was starred TheCatlady was unstarred

inabook
06/30/09

@TheCatlady: Ok, if you want to phrase if as making it about me-- how about just saying a fish is not a woman or a human-- how dare they say the suffering of a fish is on the same scale as the suffering of a human?

The point seems to be that they don't respect women. Fish aren't people, it's sensationalistic tactics did nothing to make me think that gutting a fish is cruel.
Reply

inabook was starred inabook was unstarred

SylvanSylph
06/30/09

@TheCatlady: But by drawing that *comparison,* if you think it's okay to gut a fish you then have to think it's okay to gut a woman.
Reply

SylvanSylph was starred SylvanSylph was unstarred

TheCatlady
06/30/09

@inabook:
Ok, if you want to phrase if as making it about me-- how about just saying a fish is not a woman or a human-- how dare they say the suffering of a fish is on the same scale as the suffering of a human?

And how do you know it's not? Just because it's a different species doesn't mean it's suffering or pain is any different or less. And whether you realize it or not, your are justifying a cruel act simply because the being which the act is being perpetrated on is different from you.
Reply

TheCatlady was starred TheCatlady was unstarred

inabook
06/30/09

@TheCatlady: There is this thing called "biology". It's what makes me pretty damn sure that what a fish experiences is nothing like what a woman does. I'm not justifying a cruel act, I'm saying their EXTREMELY faulty analogy does nothing to make me think that it is a cruel practice. Also, different people have different definitions of cruel. I don't know enough about fishing industries, but I'll assume they have a reason for processing the fish they way they do.
Reply

inabook was starred inabook was unstarred

TheCatlady
06/30/09

@inabook:
You know what they say about assumptions...
Reply

TheCatlady was starred TheCatlady was unstarred

inabook
06/30/09

@TheCatlady: That tired old sayings are an easy way of avoiding points you can't come up with an argument against?
Reply

inabook was starred inabook was unstarred

TheCatlady
06/30/09

@inabook:
That tired old sayings are an easy way of avoiding points you can't come up with an argument against?

No. You said I don't know enough about fishing industries, but I'll assume they have a reason for processing the fish they way they do.

You can't make a valid argument WRT something you admit you don't know, or make an assumption, about. Assumptions and reality do not always go hand in hand.

You also wrote:
I'm not justifying a cruel act, I'm saying their EXTREMELY faulty analogy does nothing to make me think that it is a cruel practice.

Whether it's faulty or not is a matter of opinion. And I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to understand that gutting a living being while still it's alive is cruel.
Reply

TheCatlady was starred TheCatlady was unstarred

inabook
06/30/09

@TheCatlady: You do realize your argument is also based on assumptions? And that you have given absolutely zero in the way of evidence to back up your opinions as anything other than your personal opinions? I would say reality is fairly distanced from the assumptions you're making, so you have that down.

Reading the comments of the people here who do fish, it seems like live gutting is one of the quickest ways to kill fish-- and ultimately, not crueler than other ways.

Also, while I'm not a rocket scientist, I do know a few who would agree with me on this point (for real) so pick you examples of people you think will agree with you better, next time.
Reply

inabook was starred inabook was unstarred

haguenite
06/30/09

In reply to Animal Rights First, An End To Violence Against Women Later?
The "fisherman" who guts her is actually a well-known Dutch comedian, too.

That somehow makes it worse.
Reply

haguenite was starred haguenite was unstarred

greengrey
06/30/09

In reply to Animal Rights First, An End To Violence Against Women Later?
At this point wouldn't it be more shocking for these groups to show violence against men? I mean, all they want is shock value, and as sad as it is, women getting treating like shit in the media isn't so shocking.
Reply

greengrey was starred greengrey was unstarred

Aesop's Foibles. YES.
06/30/09

@greengrey (raidersofthelostSTAR): That's an excellent idea. That might get people's attention, no? It'd sure as hell get mine.
Reply

bluebears
06/30/09

@greengrey (raidersofthelostSTAR): but...violence against men is just TRAGIC. Violence against women is clever!
Reply

bluebears was starred bluebears was unstarred

SylvanSylph
06/30/09

@bluebears: Plus, who wants to see naken men? GAY!
Reply

SylvanSylph was starred SylvanSylph was unstarred

SylvanSylph
06/30/09

@SylvanSylph: Yikes. *Naked
Reply

SylvanSylph was starred SylvanSylph was unstarred

MichelinG
06/30/09

In reply to Animal Rights First, An End To Violence Against Women Later?
I'm not sure how having her do a a striptease made their point anymore than just having a regular old woman beaten and gutted alive? Just so they could make that oh-so-adorable pun?

Why is this the go to move for animal rights ads? I don't understand.
Reply

MichelinG was starred MichelinG was unstarred

bluebears
06/30/09

@MichelinG: not just that, the strip tease went on for a loooooong time.
Reply

bluebears was starred bluebears was unstarred

haguenite
06/30/09

@MichelinG: I wrote this on another thread as well, but in case you miss it:

Did you finish watching the ad? Because the 'stripping' part actually has a point. A point which is explained by using the word TWICE in the texts at the end, and a point that doesn't even get lost in translation.

Yeah, it's disgusting. But the stripping thing has (semantic) point.
Reply

haguenite was starred haguenite was unstarred

inabook
06/30/09

@haguenite: MichelinG addresses that stripping is used in the text too-- it seems like she's wondering why they didn't avoid it-- because even if semantics gives an easy excuse for it, it doesn't require it.
Reply

inabook was starred inabook was unstarred

haguenite
06/30/09

@inabook: True, I was skimming the comment just after I read the other comment that asked the same question. Stupid.

I dunno, maybe it's because I can read both the Dutch and the English, but I don't read it as a pun. Because in Dutch, it's not a pun. The correct term for cleaning and salting live fish IS in fact "Levend strippen."
Reply

haguenite was starred haguenite was unstarred

inabook
06/30/09

@haguenite: Ahh, ok. Some of it does get lost in translation-- I assumed it was a pun, since wordplay gets a lot of use in ads.... and since I don't know Dutch! Thanks for the additional info :-)
Reply

inabook was starred inabook was unstarred

SylvanSylph
06/30/09

@haguenite: But it is a pun because one refers to cleaning (I imagine descaling) fish, and the other refers to a woman removing her clothing. If they were literally the same, wouldn't it mean someone was removing the woman's hair/skin/inedible parts? I mean, in English we can strip nails and we can strip people but using one to mean the other is still a pun.
Reply

SylvanSylph was starred SylvanSylph was unstarred

haguenite
06/30/09

In reply to Animal Rights First, An End To Violence Against Women Later?
Huh. I wonder if this is actually going to be on TV. Apparently it's supposed to have been on since yesterday, but I haven't seen it yet, and there's no buzz. Just the press releases that Wakker Dier sent out.

Fucking horrid though. I swear, we have good ad campaigns too! Just type in "centraal beheer commercial" on YouTube search. (This and the scales at the busstop thing just don't make us look good)
Reply

haguenite was starred haguenite was unstarred

bluebears
06/30/09

In reply to Animal Rights First, An End To Violence Against Women Later?
Wow. That was incredibly disturbing. Fucking horrible. The violence seemed so tongue in cheek as well, I can't put it into words it was just...really bad.
Reply

bluebears was starred bluebears was unstarred

♥AntiSocialSocialite♥
06/30/09

In reply to Animal Rights First, An End To Violence Against Women Later?
i'd like to think that they're saying it's a given that violence against women is horrific - and using that to highlight the horrible treatment of fish.

but still! this is disturbing.
Reply

sybann
06/30/09

In reply to Animal Rights First, An End To Violence Against Women Later?
And I was really enjoying that strip tease - to the point that I may be a bit worried.
Reply

sybann was starred sybann was unstarred

♥AntiSocialSocialite♥
06/30/09

@sybann: 'bout 'bein a cuh-razy lexbeeen?

/sarcasm?
Reply

sybann
06/30/09

@♥Anti-Social Socialite♥: Nah - just worried I might end up at a dive like the Bada Bing! I'd LOVE it if I could love women - I LIKE them better.
Reply

sybann was starred sybann was unstarred

Jack_Burton
06/30/09

In reply to Animal Rights First, An End To Violence Against Women Later?
PeTA can be pretty stupid sometimes...

[www.ctv.ca]

Insensitive, to say the least.

Yes, these ads do make an impression, but are they countering the very point they try to make?
Reply

Jack_Burton was starred Jack_Burton was unstarred

wtfox?!
06/30/09

@Jack_Burton: It's a weird ad to dissect (no pun intended [?]). I think you could say that it sets up a parallel between women and fish as creatures that are the targets of human drives (sex and eating)and that are subjected to violence because of their status as objects of some kind of appetite.

Maybe. I had to think about that for a minute, and I'm not entirely sure this interpretation would hold water. Also, it totally gets lost in Psycho Gorton's Fisherman Guy there clubbing the dancer and pulling her intestines out. I'd say the shock doesn't transition immediately into understanding, and that's where the point gets lost... in all the WTF?
Reply

wtfox?! was starred wtfox?! was unstarred

Jack_Burton
06/30/09

@wtfox?!: Sensationalizing violence is most likely their attempt to get beyond most folks' ignorance or outright desensitization, but in the end, it makes PeTA look like it either "doesn't get it" or that "the ends justify the means" a la ecoterrorism.

When these concepts come up, I always wonder "what does that say about us?" and I think that PeTA would be wise to aask that question when it uses exploitative violence to gain attention, rather than to inform.
Reply

Jack_Burton was starred Jack_Burton was unstarred

SylvanSylph
06/30/09

@wtfox?!: I eat fish. But women are not the target of my sex drive. Nor do I imagine they are for roughly half the population. Nor do I believe that women are "creatures." I really don't follow you here.
Reply

SylvanSylph was starred SylvanSylph was unstarred

LadyFabulous
06/30/09

In reply to Animal Rights First, An End To Violence Against Women Later?
I'm thisclose to turning in my Human card.
Reply

LadyFabulous was starred LadyFabulous was unstarred

marionette
06/30/09

I hear vampires are all the rage right now, but then again, they do come from humans so perhaps consider applying for position of... pegasus? You get to fly!
Reply

marionette was starred marionette was unstarred

lilbobbytables
06/30/09

@LadyFabulous: I have been trying to become a Koala apprentice for years.
Reply

lilbobbytables was starred lilbobbytables was unstarred

LadyFabulous
06/30/09

@marionette: And I'd look hawt with wings... I think you're on to something!
Reply

LadyFabulous was starred LadyFabulous was unstarred

SylvanSylph
06/30/09

@LadyFabulous: If you really are a lady, you never had one in the first placee.
Reply

SylvanSylph was starred SylvanSylph was unstarred

LadyFabulous
06/30/09

@SylvanSylph: HA! So hearted!
Reply

LadyFabulous was starred LadyFabulous was unstarred

sybann
06/30/09

In reply to Animal Rights First, An End To Violence Against Women Later?
Oh my god.
Reply

sybann was starred sybann was unstarred

Penny
06/30/09

In reply to Animal Rights First, An End To Violence Against Women Later?
No, no, no. Never okay. Fuck all you animal rights people who do this.

I am so happy I just made a reservation at Beast.
Reply

Penny was starred Penny was unstarred

Earlier discussions Other discussions Show all discussions Show featured discussions only Start a new discussion

#priorities

Jezebel

SUBSCRIBE TO Jezebel

Animal Rights First, An End To Violence Against Women Later?

The More You Know

Login

Reset Password

Register

Submit Your Comment