On Tuesday, I wrote what I considered a “filler post” on PETA’s latest screed against Kim Kardashian. I considered it a filler post because, generally speaking, I dislike covering Kim Kardashian and/or PETA, and if I have the opportunity to cover another non-Kardashian celebrity, I usually take it. But it’s been slow this week, so I gave in and covered PETA’s latest press release targeting Kim – this was the second press release against Kim specifically in less than a month. In June, PETA was complaining about Kim’s python boots (which were fug), and a few days ago, PETA was complaining about Kim’s Hermes Birkin bag. And I ended up complaining about PETA and their seemingly single-minded focus on Kim Kardashian. And so… PETA’s president sent me an email. For real.
Dear Kaiser,
I wanted to clear up a few things mentioned in your recent post about Kim Kardashian’s wardrobe. I know you say you hate us, and OK, fair enough, but PETA does not hate anyone, including Kim Kardashian. We are disappointed and sometimes amazed and distressed that some people are so ignorant or arrogant as to wear skins that came from cruelty, but we don’t hate them. What we hate is cruelty to animals—all of it—and what we want is for everyone to consider how easy it is to achieve any look, get any taste, amuse oneself, or deal with any situation without being a bully to those who can’t defend themselves. That’s why I wrote a book called Making Kind Choices, and that’s what PETA stands for.
I invite you to take a look at some of the many ways that PETA has worked with individuals and companies to make kinder clothing choices.
Very truly yours,
Ingrid E. Newkirk
Founder and President
PETA
I understand that Kim is a big PETA-offender – she wears a lot of leather, fur and various animal skins all the time. The point I was trying to make in my last post was that if PETA wants us to pay more attention to their crusade, they should mix it up a little bit and not simply focus on one C-list reality star (a C-list reality star that PETA basically already flour-bombed). I thought it was interesting when PETA went after Reese Witherspoon for carrying a Chloe purse that would have been flat-out illegal to purchase (because of it’s illegal to sell python products in California). They really caught my attention with that press release – because it was aimed at an A-lister, and because there was actually a legal issue involved (did Reese purchase the bag in LA?). If PETA wants to remain relevant in the gossip world, my advice still remains: mix it up. Stop focusing only on Kardashians. Stop using Pamela Anderson for all of your events.
So… I apologize to PETA for claiming they were “hating on” Kim – with their Cruella de Vil reference, I guess they were aiming for “strident mockery” instead. I guess the flour-bombing wasn’t “hate” either? Just a lone flour-bomber with significant attachments to PETA, after-the-fact approval from PETA, and an on-the-record utterance calling Kim a “fur hag” as Kim was assaulted. Y’all can hate Kim all you want, but it was an assault and those tactics won’t bring me to the table, ever. I’m receptive to the “message” of PETA – I adopt rescue animals, I don’t wear fur, and I keep my leather purchases to a minimum. But I don’t appreciate preachy messaging, nor do I appreciate the hypocrisy.
Photos courtesy of Fame/Flynet and WENN and Kim’s Twitter.
PETA is so full of it…They need to change their tactics. They turn people who may otherwise be sympathetic to animal rights against them. They make me almost want to defend that piece of trash KK which says ALOT! Considering that PETA kills 85% of the animals in its care they need to STFU about Kim’s stupid boots.
Yup. I am a vegan and believe in animal rights, but I am not a fan of PETA. The way they conduct their public vendettas is a huge turn-off. And that’s from someone who is predisposed to be on their side.
edit: By the way, that picture of Kimye is hilarious.
Seriously. I’m not even the type to, in adition to fur, to even wear leather clothing (hate the smell of it), other than shoes and belts and that’s only because it’s unavoidable (or close to it), but PETA seriously puts me off with their crusade-style tactics. I find it interesting them staying away from puppy mills, and what happens to pets in sheltes. Fight that instead. But I guess it’s easier to throw flour and red paint.
Sadly they don’t stay away from shelters. They have taken pets in and destroyed them rather than find them homes. They need to walk their own talk.
PETA has hurt the animal rights crusade more than helped it.
PETA, like the “Humane” society, supports breed specific legislation and kill shelters (not to mention all the animals PETA kills after they “rescue” them) Ugh, there is nothing kind about Ingrid Newkirk or her organization
PETA kills animals, so PETA can suck it as far as I’m concerned. If you want to feel awful for the rest of the day, look at petakillsanimals.com to see how these horrible excuses for humans really treat animals. Any animal lover or any one who is concerned for the ethical treatment of animals should stay far, far away from PETA.
i have read that before. but i still dont know why so many animals are put down. is it because the ones they “rescue” are too ill/old or something or is it simply because nobody wants to adopt them?
i dont even know what types of animals they rescue and what condition those animals are in but i can imagine that some or most of them would be rather ill and or in too much pain to be kept alive?
(im too lazy to do the research so any feedback would be welcome :))
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2008/04/27/peta-and-euthanasia.html
This is a good article. The whole thing is so sad to me. I wish PETA wasn’t given the credibility celebrities give it.
@gee
thank you!
just had a quick read and i guess what i was lookin for was in the comments section lol
“PETA opposes the no kill movement, and euthanizes an estimated 85% of the animals it takes in.[7] The group takes in feral cat colonies with diseases such as feline AIDS and leukemia, stray dogs, litters of parvo-infected puppies, and backyard dogs, and says that it would be unrealistic to follow a no-kill policy in such instances.[93] They offer free euthanasia services to counties that kill unwanted animals via gassing or shooting—they recommend the use of an intravenous injection of sodium pentobarbital if administered by a trained professional, and for severely ill or dying pets when euthanasia at a veterinarian is unaffordable.[94] They recommend euthanasia for certain breeds, such as pit bull terriers, and in certain situations for animals in shelters: for example, for those living for long periods in cramped cages.[95]”
interesting!
I lived in Norfolk close by PETA’s home office and you would be astonished at the amount of animals left on their doorstep. They cannot all be adopted. Impossible. They are sick, stray, ferrel, crazy, and most are unadoptable. Instead of just turning them loose, or housing them all (PETA is a non profit!) they put them down. In a humane way.
SO for all of you who have all of these opinions on PETA killing animals and have never researched any of YOUR claims, just know that PETA (as crazy as they seem) get down in the trenches where none of you would ever go and fight for animal rights. I’ve seen some of their research and believe me, it’s horrifying. Give them a little credit. At least for doing work for animals that most of you would never do.
Peta may well be inundated with animals but I also believe that most of them can be saved. I’ve worked in animal rescue for 15 years and taken in many that were deemed unsuitable for adoption, I’ve yet to find one that I couldn’t help. It has often been expensive, sometimes sad but all have had the experience of a safe and loving environment no matter how long their stay was.
As the article gee posted pointed out, no-kill shelters have gone on a huge recruiting drive for volunteers who not only donate cash, food and other necessities but time and space. With their huge profile there is no reason PETA couldn’t do the same or at the very least work with local shelters to find foster homes for the animals.
I agree with PETA basic message but I think they’ve lost their way and often over hype in the name of getting publicity.
@GimmeaBreak – when I said that the whole thing is sad, I meant the whole thing. Sick animals, healthy animals.. all sad. Also, these arent ‘MY’ claims. Type PETA kills animals into google. A lot of people are talking about this. All I am saying is that it’s sad that PETA is so outrageous that any semblance of a good message they once had is gone.
PETA doesn’t just euthanize sick animals that are unadoptable, they have broken into labs to steal animals and then just killed them after announcing how they saved them. They also support BSL which leads to healthy adoptable dogs being killed just because they look like a “bad” breed
“Y’all can hate Kim all you want, but it was an assault and those tactics won’t bring me to the table, ever.”
I couldn’t have said it better myself Kaiser! I pretty much said the same thing a few days ago, I get their cause but the means they are using to achieve their end is seriously fcked up.
I agree with you, the same way that preaching ” fire and brime stone” drives ppl from church. Peta using their scare and bulling tactics is a huge turn off and takes attention away from their message.
Well said Kaiser
Ditto!
“lets stop the animal killing in our shelters for a moment, i need to write an email to a gossip blog.”
Sad, but true.
Doesn’t that just sum it up?
Lame PR from someone who should be a seasoned pro. This is a thinly veiled attempt to sell books.
Not impressed.
That was my impression! Shameless book plug!
Peta sucks! They slam KK, and for example why not JLO? JLO loves fur,the Olsen tweens and their orrific fashion lines, there are many many superstar to slam, but as Kaiser has correctly pointed they focus only on KK. And now I’m defending KK, for Godsake!!!
I am amazed by the fact these people have the time to not only read this blog but send a personal letter too??
and if they love animals so much, can they please take Kim Kardashian and put her in a more nice environment, like i don’t know.. a desert island along with crocodiles and snakes since she loves wearing them so much?
^^^This wins the Internet today.
If PETA really want to stop animal cruelty maybe they should attack the big fashion brand like Hermes or Chloe instead the celebrity consument, finishing what they consider to be problem right from the roots.
My guest is they attack the later because it’s so much easier, PETA got more attention, and they can dodge lawsuit just in case something wrong with their statement.
Agreed. PETA has never been on my buddy list even when my sisters boyfriend challenged us to be Vegan and understand the concepts of mass produced cruelty. They are out for money from donations tied to constant hounding emails; sales for books and merchandise; and worse of all support for its shelters that kill surrendered pets because the organization is anti-pets. If they wanted to make an impact they would work with the companies to find suppliers with good ethics and higher regard for animal life and suffering. It isn’t about making consumers stop buying fur because realistically that’s not going to happen. There will always be demand so you have to look for products that are self-conscious of their reputation and desire to be more proactive in their manufacturing of goods with concern for animals. You wont stop people from eating Mcdonald. Chicken nuggets so you need to work on making the company responsible for buying cruelty free meats. Consumers don’t want to be told what they can and cannot buy especially n the States. They would rather just pick retailers that provide them the option to care about where the materials come from and buy products with the same quality as those they are foregoing due to cruel means. Until PETA steps out transparent about their own transgressions and starts pushing for changes at the source of the problem; their message is useless and lost on the wrong people.
Well said Kaiser but I will make one comment in the PETA’s defense. You have to be extreme now a days to get noticed. You have to be obnoxious and over board to get attention and press and PETA is good at that. There are thousands of animal orgs out there you’ve never heard of because they don’t write open letters and flour bomb people. I ve been involved with animal rescue my entire life and know this industry (it is an industry) and they at least have the balls to call out these a$$holes. If they weren’t doing these things no one would pay attention. There is such an extremely high rate of depression in people in this industry because we really see the worst humanity has to offer so its kind of refreshing to see a little anger out there. I m not sure that makes sense to alot of people I guess you ahve to be on the inside to understand. Animal cruelty can only be stopped with one person and thats the consumer. The buy the furs and all that and they buy the puppy mill dogs and give them up for adoption and until the consumer changes this problem will continue
Thanks, Jaime, for putting it beautifully.
No organization is perfect, definitely not PETA. But I really appreciate people like you who serve the voiceless.
I have always wanted to flour-bomb that creature just for her existence, well someone did it for a cause, good for them 🙂
+1
Agree Jaimie. Really, you can’t open the ‘net or turn on a TV, look at a mag without seeing one of those Kartrashians so yes, they are a good “get” for publicity. Also – the cause is still so important – anytime you can promote veganism/animal cruelty, I say go for it. As for PETA, they do important work, so carry on! I think it’s hypocritical that Kaiser wrote that she tries not to cover the Kardashians – your website is full of them! Daily! Despite our pleas to stop the coverage … so even if it’s not you, it’s your coworkers. Just like the flour bomber wasn’t officially PETA, but the after-consent was there. And bottom line, the Kartrashians LOVED the publicity. No doubts on that score.
Are those the boots in the last picture? It looks like snakes are to eat her legs
How about PETA stops using D-List celebs like Clooney’s ex EC who has worn fur even after making the ad for them?
Hypocrisy much?
And as to not hating anyone, I’m pretty sure Edward Taub and all people involved with neuroscientific research at the NIH and elsewhere would beg to differ, Ms Newkirk.
I dislike peta as much as I dislike the Kuntrashians. But peta goes to far. There is no need for assault, you’re right there Kaiser. There has to be a better way to get the word out.
If anything, she’s (Ingrid) diplomatic!
And poor thing, she’s still getting stoned for it.
I liked her letter btw.
I agree with Kaiser fully on this..
PETA needs to re- evaluate their actions and what image to want to present.. Kim K maybe a C lister at best but she does garner as much attention as an A lister sad to say this part.
Reality is PETA has tarnished their reputation already do whatever good they do is overshadow by the negative..
PETA stop contradicting your looking like ***
I still agree with Kaiser totally!!!
I can’t stand people telling me what not to eat and what not to wear. PETA can kiss my azz.
So we shouldnt wear leather or fur but its completely okay to support breed ban legislation? F–k f–king PETA.
Can’t wrap my head around the logic in that one…
PETA need to challenge manufacturers, not individuals.
Most people who purchase fur, or python, don’t do so because they emulate Kim Kardashian or Reese Witherspoon. They do so because they enjoy the products of luxury labels such as Hermes. Targeting a celebrity really just brings attention to a beautiful item by a luxury retailer!
Does anyone else remember when PETA tried to push the use of human breast milk as the go-to substitute for dairy milk? I remember reading that article a few years ago and was like, “nope, yep, they’re nuts”. I find PETA to be exceptionally hypocritical and contradicting in their actions.
The idea behind human vs dairy breast milk is to pose the question: why do we think it’s okay to drink the lactation product of another species, yet we shudder at the idea of drinking the lactation product from our own species? It doesn’t make any sense. why not drink rat milk if we are so fond of milk from other species? “Food” for thought.
I understand the argument and the thoughts behind it. My reaction wasn’t a shudder against drinking human milk but the potential harm that can come from it on all sides. Sure, the same can be said from the cow milk perspective but it still was tremendously absurd. It’s a very strange jump to make with an argument. On the nutrition side, each type of milk (cow, human, goat, moose, rat, cat, dog, etc.) all have a different caloric and nutrient composition. Just because it’s called milk doesn’t mean it’s equal. Also, I don’t drink dairy milk as I’m both lactose intolerant and casein allergic but I was not able to have breast milk as an infant as it made me tremendously ill.
If it’s about wanting to promote drinking a form of milk that is taken from a humane source or a non-animal source, then why not promote the milks such as rice, almond, or coconut?
Those milks are already promoted as part of a vegan/veg lifestyle. I think they wanted the shock value/conversation starter: what if we kept pregnant woment in stalls and milked them to feed a population? It’s also a kick at the factory farming practices. In my opinion anyway.
I am not a PETA supporter, but let’s discuss the anti-“No-Kill” policy in a little more detail. The answer to our overgrown domestic pet population is not a “no-kill” policy. It’s responsible pet ownership. It’s spaying and neutering your pets.
If a cat or dog is found with a disease or health issue that makes it ineligible for adoption, isn’t it kinder to gently put it to sleep, instead of keeping it locked in a small cage until it dies from the disease, possibly serving as a point of infection for other animals? I don’t believe that killing healthy, potentially adoptable pets is a valid means to handle the overflowing shelters, but I think there has to be some understanding of the circumstances.
I think responsible pet ownership and laws, (as a libertarian, I must add governed at the local or state level) are how we solve this problem. Make people get a license to breed animals, and fine people who do not responsibly spay and neuter their pets.
All of my animals are rescues, and I’m grateful for them, but I hate that they had to suffer until they got to me. Failing to spay and neuter animals is the height of irresponsibility and cruelty. It’s the equivalent of having fully grown, healthy adults, with no control over their sex drives and no access to contraceptives running around getting pregnant all over the place… So in short, what the anti-contraceptive movement is pushing, except without the bounds of matrimony to keep those randy bunnies in check!
uh.
Will never forgive them for this alone.
http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2008/05/05/petas-holocaust-on-your-plate-campaign/
Ingrid is an anti-Semitic, misogynistic, racist monster, who while trying to profess her love for animals is consistently unable to hide her contempt for humanity.
PETA did not send that woman to flour-bomb K-Trash, just because they said they didn’t disagree with her after the fact is not an admission of culpability.
You all preach about what PETA should do to be taken seriously, but when you literally accuse people of crimes they did not do when you clearly know the difference you cannot be taken seriously either.
PETA is disgusting.
How about treating women with some respect for once? How about apologizing for those “hamburger = Holocaust” ads? Nooo, that wouldn’t get PETA the attention. All negative attention, and none of it helps animals, but PETA doesn’t actually care about that.
Very valuable information, I am very grateful,I agree with your Blog and I will be back to check it more in the future~~~ so please keep up your work.