Blaze orange hats

If you are not new here, it is no secret that despite their generally bad reputation among the general, self-apppointed arbiters of decency, I am pretty favorably disposed to the mission of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. I guess that makes me a radical animal rights terrorist, a misogynist, or something. But the reality is that PETA are working for a good cause, although a bit obnoxiously at times.

Which is why I am not terribly surprised, though somewhat disappointed, that PETA overstepped by putting Michelle Obama on their latest anti-fur campaign ads, without her permission. Mentioning that the First Lady has disavowed fur, that's a great message. Using the First Lady's likeness without her consent? Well, that's another thing entirely. And it's the type of thing that lets the organization's detractors - those who just cannot stand the anti-fur and anti-meat message, who don't want to be scolded for eating what-they-want-when-they-want-it, and who don't want to be troubled with thinking about the costs to other living things) attack PETA and take the attention away from PETA's message, placing the focus instead on PETA's unorthodox approach. Worse than simply friendly fire, PETA's careless planning gives ammunition to their enemies, and unfortunately creates new enemies.

I am probably going to regret saying this, and maybe I am insensitive to the concerns, but the opposition to the "I'd rather go naked than wear fur" advertising campaign is a red herring. The campaign gets attention by catching your eye. Charges that the campaign is degrading seem silly to me. I consider myself pretty sensitive to the feelings of people (though I concede that not all others perceive me that way; but when I'm not, I do feel bad about it - that is, if I feel bad about it). But as far as the PETA naked campaign, I don't know any people who truly object on grounds of feminism or sexism or how it impacts girls' images of their bodies. Sure, they're out there, because the media tells us they are, and you can go to several feminist web sites that complain vocally and at times justifiably about PETA.

I'm not really knocking those activist feminists, either. They do what activists do, and raising sensitivity is what activism is all about. Which is exactly why, then, that PETA does what it does - tries to raise sensitivity about its cause, animal welfare.

To be sure, PETA's too-frequent missteps make its other behavior suspect, as well. I'm not sure why we should be upset about admiring beauty and the point that people can be beautiful without wearing animal products or taking the lives of animals for a tasty meal. Would having less "attractive" women posing in their ads make those ads less offensive? And sure, PETA should be more balanced and take a more co-ed approach. I'd be happy to post pictures of attractive men in PETA ads, too. (No, Dennis Rodman and Tommy Lee, who have done PETA ads, don't fit the bill.) The message of the ads isn't that you have to look a certain way; it's that vegetarianism and respecting life is itself attractive.

How, then, do I explain the ad to the left? Well, I just can't. It's offensive and mean spirited and unfortunate that an organization whose message should be one of respect would do it. I'm all for celebrating beauty; I'm not really in favor of denigrating those who don't fit an image, though. It's true that a vegetarian diet is healthier and more likely to help you lose weight, but there are positive ways to send that message. Moreover, this billboard targets the wrong audience - obnoxious men who laugh at calling a woman fat, a whale, aren't the type who are going to give up their burgers and porterhouses.

But all that being said, at it's core, vocal objection to PETA - and objecting to PETA is how you get your bona fides that you are thoughtful and reasonable - is based principally on a fear of PETA's "radical" animal rights message, with all those other things as excuses. PETA has a message that, for all that is frustrating about PETA, is a just and moral message, yet it's a message most people would rather ignore. Not because they think it's wrong, but because people know that it's right and just, but which they know they have no intention of following. People just cannot stand to be told to do the right thing when societal norms impose no incentives to actually do the right thing. PETA's answer is to make you look.

Still, all publicity is not good publicity, particularly when it takes your natural allies and turns them against you. And turning the First Lady against you is foolish strategy.

Sensationalism is great. Stupidity? Not so much.