Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I don't know about their "protesting" though. I mean, I like boobies. But how could anyone take them seriously?

 Sigvatr wrote:
But how could anyone take them seriously?

I think that's the problem. They are setting out to highlight injustice and inequality for the women of Tunisia, but are doing it in such a way as to distract from the issues. With sensationalist protests such as this people more often remember the stunt than the cause.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 Firehead158 wrote:
I call dibs on the redhead in the middle. Just need to get her a tan, and tighten up that belly, and we're good to go.

Ya know, I don't discourage topless protests. Why can't the protestors be the girls from the Hooters calendar or something like that? Dumb hippies.

Are you a very beautiful man?

Oh, I am sure he has rippling six-pack abs and a flowing mane of hair so silken and luxurious that women fall to their knees when he passes them on the street. Yep. I am sure of it.


On topic, these women have a level of courage that I find inspiring. I am not applauding Femen, as I know very little about the organization other than they stage topless protests, but I do admire the personal courage and conviction of these three women protesting women's rights in an Islamic country where western laws have no sway. I hope they are not mistreated while in custody.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
But how could anyone take them seriously?

I think that's the problem. They are setting out to highlight injustice and inequality for the women of Tunisia, but are doing it in such a way as to distract from the issues. With sensationalist protests such as this people more often remember the stunt than the cause.

I can't shake off the feeling that Femen is doing to feminism what PETA did to animal rights a decade ago: A huge disservice.

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
But how could anyone take them seriously?

I think that's the problem. They are setting out to highlight injustice and inequality for the women of Tunisia, but are doing it in such a way as to distract from the issues. With sensationalist protests such as this people more often remember the stunt than the cause.

I disagree. I think that this is exactly the kind of peaceful protest that is effective in highlighting the cause. After all, any reprimands or punishments given to them will clearly be based on the Sharia morality laws, which will serve as a perfect example of how injust those laws are.

Agent_Tremolo wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
But how could anyone take them seriously?

I think that's the problem. They are setting out to highlight injustice and inequality for the women of Tunisia, but are doing it in such a way as to distract from the issues. With sensationalist protests such as this people more often remember the stunt than the cause.

I can't shake off the feeling that Femen is doing to feminism what PETA did to animal rights a decade ago: A huge disservice.

Honestly, I do not see the comparison, other than that you might have a similar emotional reaction to both. Femen is trying to highlight inequalities through the use of a highly visible protest that is only outrageous when you view it through the lens of the very mindset they are protesting against. PETA, on the other hand, employs arson and kills your pets because of a feigned moral high ground.

Those women were actually quite brave pulling that stunt in Arab country.

They have bigger balls than the people making light of them in this thread.

Here's a question: what would happen if a group of men pulled this stunt? More, less, nothing?

Mr Nobody wrote:Here's a question: what would happen if a group of men pulled this stunt? More, less, nothing?

That's the whole point to the protest.

Likely nothing for the topless bit, although the anti-morals message might raise some hackles.

Looking around the internet they've been mistreated by the public, there's a few photos of them covered in blood and being hit. It seems that some people can't help but react violently towards a provocative but non-violent form of protest. When you lash out with your fists instead of attempting to debate or simply ignore, then you merely appear thuggish and stupid, incapable of articulating an idea beyond attacking the opposing view. Femen also seem to be targeting islam in general for it's overt misogyny and inequality.

There are some muslim women speaking against Femen saying it's their right and their choice to dress the way they do. But I don't buy it. Firstly, although some are genuinely keen on that mode of dress, most muslim women dressing that way don't actually have the choice offered. If they had the choice, and were supported by muslim men to make that choice freely, it might be a different story. But they aren't given a reasonable choice. The second thing is that they are culturally conditioned from an early age to accept it as normal and expected. We are all conditioned to think certain things and act a certain way, people want things because they have been conditioned to want them. There are plenty of examples of this in all cultures, but muslim women covering themselves up is overtly a form of oppression, they are under expectation to do so by their culture, their parents, their husbands. When they want to wear the burka they want to adhere to a cultural/religious hegemony, they don't really have the freedom to choose. Women have fought, and still fight, for equal status in western societies (see the gender pay gap) but the gap between muslim men and women is so much wider. And when you look to some muslim countries, they are treated like chattel. If Femen keep getting attention and exposing the outrageous treatment of women in muslim societies it will be harder for us to ignore them. They might get some sniggers for getting their tits out, but the fact is that Tunisia has received very little coverage since the Arab Spring when we were supposed to believe that they were overthrowing their oppressive governments. Prior to this demonstration I hadn't heard of Amina, and had seen very little coverage of what the Tunisian government is not like since the revolution, and what there is, isn't very nice at all.

 azazel the cat wrote:
I disagree. I think that this is exactly the kind of peaceful protest that is effective in highlighting the cause. After all, any reprimands or punishments given to them will clearly be based on the Sharia morality laws, which will serve as a perfect example of how injust those laws are.

Yes, because we're all liable to forget about examples of Sharia like women being stoned to death for adultery, forced female genital mutilation etc. unless some Western women go to Tunisia and go to jail for a stunt masquerading as protest.
Tell me. Out of all the coverage of FEMEN protests what gets the most publicity and column inches, and what do most people remember - the issue, or the fact that they were topless? How much of an impact have their protests had to date? Are they being taken seriously, or are the issues they highlight receiving more long term attention and having more interest shown in a resolution?

 azazel the cat wrote:
Honestly, I do not see the comparison, other than that you might have a similar emotional reaction to both. Femen is trying to highlight inequalities through the use of a highly visible protest that is only outrageous when you view it through the lens of the very mindset they are protesting against. PETA, on the other hand, employs arson and kills your pets because of a feigned moral high ground.

Do PETA employ arson, or did they send funds to a person charged with arson? There is a difference there.
However the PETA comparison seems very apt in my opinion. Both groups employ protest methods that gain more publicity than the issues they wish to highlight, both are very sensationalist and both are seen as fringe groups with little actual impact other than grabbing the occasional headline for whatever stunt they have elected to pull for their most recent protest.

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
I disagree. I think that this is exactly the kind of peaceful protest that is effective in highlighting the cause. After all, any reprimands or punishments given to them will clearly be based on the Sharia morality laws, which will serve as a perfect example of how injust those laws are.

Yes, because we're all liable to forget about examples of Sharia like women being stoned to death for adultery, forced female genital mutilation etc. unless some Western women go to Tunisia and go to jail for a stunt masquerading as protest.
Tell me. Out of all the coverage of FEMEN protests what gets the most publicity and column inches, and what do most people remember - the issue, or the fact that they were topless? How much of an impact have their protests had to date? Are they being taken seriously, or are the issues they highlight receiving more long term attention and having more interest shown in a resolution?

As a matter of fact, we unfortunately *are* likely to forget those examples, because they get basically zero coverage in the media. However, some Western women going to jail in Tunisia is the equivalent of a white girl going missing in the Caribbean.

As far as what it remembered, I cannot say for certain. Time will tell. However, I suspect that more people will remember the event, at least, of which at least a fraction will remember the issue. However, if they were not topless, I doubt this would have even made it to the OT board, and thus nobody would remember the stunt, and thus nobody would remember the cause, either.

Femen has found a non-violent and succinct way to grab sensationalist headlines in order to publicize their cause. I commend them for that.

 azazel the cat wrote:
Do PETA employ arson, or did they send funds to a person charged with arson? There is a difference there.

Senior members of PETA have been demonstrated to endorse arson. Coupled with funding a known arsonist before and after the commission of an act of arson, I'd say that's as much "employing" arson as you can get without actually shrieking "I am employing arson as a method of protest!" whilst running down the street with a gas can.

 azazel the cat wrote:
As a matter of fact, we unfortunately *are* likely to forget those examples, because they get basically zero coverage in the media. However, some Western women going to jail in Tunisia is the equivalent of a white girl going missing in the Caribbean.

As far as what it remembered, I cannot say for certain. Time will tell. However, I suspect that more people will remember the event, at least, of which at least a fraction will remember the issue. However, if they were not topless, I doubt this would have even made it to the OT board, and thus nobody would remember the stunt, and thus nobody would remember the cause, either.

Femen has found a non-violent and succinct way to grab sensationalist headlines in order to publicize their cause. I commend them for that.

Sounds just like PETA's modus operandi.... With most of the media attention on the stunt itself rather than the reason for the stunt. Great for short term publicity, not so good for long term solutions. All this achieved was to get three FEMEN protesters arrested and their pictures in the headlines. It hasn't done anything to advance the equality of women's rights in Tunisia, rather it has given more conservative elements ammunition not to address gender inequality and plenty of reason not to pay attention to overtures from the decadent West.
Your mileage may vary, some of us are under no illusions of what life can be like under Sharia and do not need attention grabbing stunts to remind us and act as a distraction

 azazel the cat wrote:
Senior members of PETA have been demonstrated to endorse arson. Coupled with funding a known arsonist before and after the commission of an act of arson, I'd say that's as much "employing" arson as you can get without actually shrieking "I am employing arson as a method of protest!" whilst running down the street with a gas can.

It was my understanding that they funded the arsonist's legal defense when he was charged, not that they paid him in advance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingrid_Newkirk

Ingrid Newkirk (born June 11, 1949) is an English-born British American animal rights activist and the president of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, also known as PETA, which is the world's largest animal rights organization. . .
Newkirk has been criticized for publicizing actions carried out in the name of the Animal Liberation Front (ALF). She supports the goals of the ALF, arguing that "Not until black demonstrators resorted to violence did the national government work seriously for civil rights legislation ... In 1850 white abolitionists, having given up on peaceful means, began to encourage and engage in actions that disrupted plantation operations and liberated slaves. Was that all wrong?"[7] She has said that she understands, but shrinks from, actions that involve arson:
"I do support getting animals out in the same way I would have supported getting human slaves out, child labor, sex slaves, the whole lot. But I don’t support burning. I don’t support arson. I would rather that these buildings weren’t standing, so on some level I understand. I just don’t like the idea of that. Maybe that is wishy-washy of me, because I don’t want those buildings standing if they are going to hurt anyone. And the ALF has never hurt mice nor mare."[21]
She has been accused of having had advance knowledge of one ALF action. During the 1995 trial of Rod Coronado, in connection with an arson attack at Michigan State University (MSU), U.S. Attorney Michael Dettmer alleged that Newkirk had arranged, in advance of the attack, to have Coronado send her stolen documents from the university and a videotape of the action

So while accused of it almost 20 years ago there is nothing to suggest that she had advanced knowledge of the crime, nor that she condoned it.

JWhex wrote:
Those women were actually quite brave pulling that stunt in Arab country.

They have bigger balls than the people making light of them in this thread.

Agreed.

Criminal conspiracy means if you're in for a penny; you're in for a pound.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_for_the_Ethical_Treatment_of_Animals#Direct_action_and_the_ALF

Alex Pacheco: "Arson, property destruction, burglary and theft are 'acceptable crimes' when used for the animals' cause."

Newkirk commented to the Chronicle of Higher Education in 1999, "When you see the resistance to basic humane treatment and to the acknowledgment of animals' social needs, I find it small wonder that the laboratories aren't all burning to the ground. If I had more guts, I'd light a match."

And all of this stands, of course, as rank hypocrisy given that PETA's own animal shelter in Florida euthanized so many animals (something like 95%) that the government tried to force them to re-label it as a euthanization clinic.

Anyway, Femen's protest, I think, is effective because it clearly demonstrates the difference of rights between women and men; that is, men would not be arrested for standing around without shirts. Women, however, are. All Femen are doing is making noise while placing that hypocrisy on display in public. If PETA were to do something similar, it would require something akin to butchering a chicken in the middle of the street so that everyone can see what it looks like. However, even then it would be questionable as the laws against butchering in public are rooted in sanitation, not morality, as they are with the Femen protests. And also, butchering animals shouldn't deter people from eating them (but maybe that's just me as I'm not so far removed that I fail to understand where my food comes from).

 azazel the cat wrote:
Criminal conspiracy means if you're in for a penny; you're in for a pound.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_for_the_Ethical_Treatment_of_Animals#Direct_action_and_the_ALF

Alex Pacheco: "Arson, property destruction, burglary and theft are 'acceptable crimes' when used for the animals' cause."

Newkirk commented to the Chronicle of Higher Education in 1999, "When you see the resistance to basic humane treatment and to the acknowledgment of animals' social needs, I find it small wonder that the laboratories aren't all burning to the ground. If I had more guts, I'd light a match."

PETA funds a number of activists and groups—some with links to militant groups, including the ALF, which the FBI has named as a domestic terrorist threat.

So PETA does not have direct links with the ALF. But it funds activists who then in turn have links with the group. Again, in the strict sense PETA can say that they maintained a distance from criminal activities and had no say on where the funds went after they were donated to another group.

You might also want to look into what criminal conspiracy is too - https://www.lexisnexis.com/lawschool/study/outlines/html/crim/crim22.htm

General Principle

Generally speaking, a conspiracy is an agreement by two or more persons to commit a criminal act or series of criminal acts, or to accomplish a legal act by unlawful means.

[A] The Agreement

[1] Common law – At common law, a conspiracy need not be based on an express agreement. Furthermore, an agreement can exist although not all of the parties to it have knowledge of every detail of the arrangement, as long as each party is aware of its essential nature. [Blumenthal v. United States, 332 U.S. 539, 557–58 (1947)] Moreover, a "conspiracy may exist even if a conspirator does not agree to commit or facilitate each and every part of the substantive offense."[Salinas v. United States, 522 U.S. 52, 63 (1997)] It is enough that each person agrees, at a minimum, to commit or facilitate some of the acts leading to the substantive crime.

[2] Model Penal Code – Four types of agreement fall within the definition of conspiracy. A person is guilty of conspiracy if he agrees to:

1.) commit an offense;
2.) attempt to commit an offense;
3.) solicit another to commit an offense; or
4.) aid another person in the planning or commission of the offense.

 azazel the cat wrote:
Anyway, Femen's protest, I think, is effective because it clearly demonstrates the difference of rights between women and men; that is, men would not be arrested for standing around without shirts. Women, however, are. All Femen are doing is making noise while placing that hypocrisy on display in public. If PETA were to do something similar, it would require something akin to butchering a chicken in the middle of the street so that everyone can see what it looks like. However, even then it would be questionable as the laws against butchering in public are rooted in sanitation, not morality, as they are with the Femen protests. And also, butchering animals shouldn't deter people from eating them (but maybe that's just me as I'm not so far removed that I fail to understand where my food comes from).

I'll be honest here Azzy, your argument comes across as a little disjointed.

I think you missed the point of my comparison with PETA. Of course, Femen's action is far less harmful than the violent acts of quasi-terrorism commited in PETA's name. But now think of how that reckless violence ended up being used to paint a legitimate cause, the ethical treatment of animals, in a negative light. With their actions, they caused more harm than they wanted to avert.


Associating feminism with reckless attitudes towards morality and sex is a dangerous stunt to pull in a socially-backwards country that's struggling with a delicate political transition. I'm worried that Femen's untimely, uncalled for action might spark a moral panic that ends up taking its toll on the budding northern african feminist and secularist movements, handing off free rhetorical ammunition to the religious extremists. The entire problem is further agravated by the fact that the three activists detained in Tunisia are europeans. Islamists and other traditionalist factions (secular nationalists can be as harsh in this issue as their opponents) have usually painted feminism as a western import, harmful to morality, decency and national values. With their stunt, Femen have made the Tunisian feminists' future a bit bleaker: From now on, they're not just women with outreageously modern views on their role on society, but also potential foreign sympathizers or even enemy agents.

Don't forget that Tunisia is a former Western colony and nationalist, anti-imperialist sentiments still run high. Opponents of secularism and modernization will surely resort to them to rally supporters to their cause.

And then there's Sharia. Femen activists have been beaten by the police, incarcerated and ridiculed by the governmental media in Ukraine and Russia. They were chased and vexed by an angry mob in the Vatican and France. You don't need Sharia to have injustice and brutality but one thing I concede: Femen's actions expose the irrationally brutal nature of the regimes and organizations they protest against. But then again, we already know that.

I admit, I was ashamed at their protest in France. Mocking Catholic imagery was NOT the way to show the french religous/identitarian conservatives that gay marriage doesn't pose a threat to their customs and beliefs. For the very same reasons, I'm irked at their actions in Tunisia.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 Firehead158 wrote:
I call dibs on the redhead in the middle. Just need to get her a tan, and tighten up that belly, and we're good to go.

Ya know, I don't discourage topless protests. Why can't the protestors be the girls from the Hooters calendar or something like that? Dumb hippies.

Are you a very beautiful man?

Oh, I am sure he has rippling six-pack abs and a flowing mane of hair so silken and luxurious that women fall to their knees when he passes them on the street. Yep. I am sure of it.

Other than the hair, describes me perfectly. Only hippies have long hair.

...but it was a joke. I was objectifying women. At least they shaved their pits.

JWhex wrote:
Those women were actually quite brave pulling that stunt in Arab country.

They have bigger balls than the people making light of them in this thread.

U even heresy bro?

 Agent_Tremolo wrote:
I can't shake off the feeling that Femen is doing to feminism what PETA did to animal rights a decade ago: A huge disservice.

I would compare them to Anonymous, not PETA. Yes, both PETA and Femen have cottoned onto the idea that female nudity gets attention, but nobody hates PETA because they convince attractive women to take their clothes off for the cause. I compare them to Anonymous because they protest a variety of things, some of them good, some of them bad, that makes it hard to support the organisation as a whole. They seem to be defined by a tactic, not an objective.

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
Anyway, Femen's protest, I think, is effective because it clearly demonstrates the difference of rights between women and men; that is, men would not be arrested for standing around without shirts. Women, however, are. All Femen are doing is making noise while placing that hypocrisy on display in public. If PETA were to do something similar, it would require something akin to butchering a chicken in the middle of the street so that everyone can see what it looks like. However, even then it would be questionable as the laws against butchering in public are rooted in sanitation, not morality, as they are with the Femen protests. And also, butchering animals shouldn't deter people from eating them (but maybe that's just me as I'm not so far removed that I fail to understand where my food comes from).

I'll be honest here Azzy, your argument comes across as a little disjointed.

How is it disjointed? Honest question; it seems straightforward to me.

And yes, PETA does have direct links to both ALF and ELF in that PETA has directly funded both groups in the past, not only in lawyer's fees, but also in the form of grants and in at least one instance, a flat payout.

 azazel the cat wrote:
How is it disjointed? Honest question; it seems straightforward to me.

You start off with a comparison of the physical characteristics of the male and female body, which seems like a distraction from the issue and largely immaterial to the discussion as you're attempting to imply Western standards on a non-Western country where the protest was heard (even though a bare chested FEMEN protester was arrested in Paris, although we have yet to find out if her lack of attire was a contributing factor). You then attempt to liken a women exposing her breasts in a cheap political stunt to the public slaughter of an animal (conflating non-violent and violent actions), and then have a quick mention of morality vs sanitation (again appearing to rely on Western standards). Finally you close with people needing to know where their meat comes from. I'm sorry but that read like a series of ideas that didn't seem anything other than tangentially related at best. Maybe it just needed developed more, or a common thread better established.

 azazel the cat wrote:
And yes, PETA does have direct links to both ALF and ELF in that PETA has directly funded both groups in the past, not only in lawyer's fees, but also in the form of grants and in at least one instance, a flat payout.

Were this "payout" before or after the crime? I'm aware that PETA contributed to ALF's defense after the fact, but that was almost 30 years ago with no evidence to suggest (must less charge) for criminal conspiracy

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Sounds just like PETA's modus operandi.... With most of the media attention on the stunt itself rather than the reason for the stunt. Great for short term publicity, not so good for long term solutions.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how demonstrations work.

They are not meant to communicate an explicit message, they are meant to attract attention to a given organization (and therefore the Causes they endorse) such that observers will then do further research. Of course most people won't do that research, but that's just the nature of humanity.

 dogma wrote:
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how demonstrations work.

They are not meant to communicate an explicit message, they are meant to attract attention to a given organization (and therefore the Causes they endorse) such that observers will then do further research. Of course most people won't do that research, but that's just the nature of humanity.

They also will not do their research if they indulge in tactics that alienate the general public, or those that they seek to aid.

Clearly you and I have a fundamental difference in our understanding as to how we believe a demonstration should work (although I will thank you for not trying to attribute it to my being an immigrant this time). I believe the following;
- Demonstrations are a great way to gain public attention for an issue
- The issue that are being highlighted should be easily communicable
- The issue should be presented in such a way as to appeal to a wide audience
- It should be done in a reasonably mature manner so as to engage with as many members of the public as possible, without alienating them
- That any demonstration should leave the audience better informed about the issue, and why it is being protested, than just simply getting attention for your group.
- That there is such a thing as bad publicity
- The demonstration should make the possibility for future discussion of the issue more likely, not less likely
- If you have to rely upon cheap publicity it is likely that it is your group, rather than the issue, that gets attention. This in turn distracts people from the issue itself. If your protest is tasteless enough then the issue may suffer from guilt by association

The goal that FEMEN set out to achieve was to highlight the plight of women in Tunisia. The result of their protest is that more people are talking about the group than the issue that they wanted, and they have likely harmed any discourse on women's rights by thumbing their noses at local traditions. It's hard to change the minds of people to your perspective if they are of the opinion that you are insulting them and their culture (which can be very important in some countries). Never mind that conservative elements can now point to the decadent West and it's values as a warning against what will happen if un-Islamic values flourish. Are you still of the opinion that this was a successful demonstration? How about the one in Paris? Again, there was more coverage of the group that the issue being demonstrated there.

Remind me again though just how successful PETA have been in recent years, in part because of their overblown stunts that have alienated the public.

You may find this interesting also - http://ctb.ku.edu/en/tablecontents/sub_section_main_1258.aspx

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
How is it disjointed? Honest question; it seems straightforward to me.

You start off with a comparison of the physical characteristics of the male and female body, which seems like a distraction from the issue and largely immaterial to the discussion as you're attempting to imply Western standards on a non-Western country where the protest was heard (even though a bare chested FEMEN protester was arrested in Paris, although we have yet to find out if her lack of attire was a contributing factor). You then attempt to liken a women exposing her breasts in a cheap political stunt to the public slaughter of an animal (conflating non-violent and violent actions), and then have a quick mention of morality vs sanitation (again appearing to rely on Western standards). Finally you close with people needing to know where their meat comes from. I'm sorry but that read like a series of ideas that didn't seem anything other than tangentially related at best. Maybe it just needed developed more, or a common thread better established.

Fair enough. Allow me to explain:
My point is that the reason Femen as protesting, is the enequal treatment that women receive in the Islamist world, which is most strictly demonstrated in the form of its moral-based laws. (hence, the "feth your morals" slogans). By protesting topless, Femen is clearly demonstrating this inequality, as if men were to perform the same action, they would likely not be punished, as there are no laws against men going shirtless that I am aware of. This protest serves two purposes: first, as outlined, it serves to highlight this inequality. And second, it draws attention to a peaceful protest because, well, breasts.

Now, if PETA wanted to make a statement that was both shocking (in the sense that it grabs headlines) and peaceful, then they would likely need to do something similar to Femen, in the sense that Femen is making a scene of disobeying an unjust law in public (and thus demonstrating that law's injustice. So for PETA, this would likely need to be something along the lines of butchering an animal publicly, in order to draw awareness of how animals are slaughtered for our consumption. However, I digress, as even that would likely not have the same substance beyond the shock & awe effect; as the laws against butchering in public (which is what PETA would be breaking) are not based in morality (and thus arbitrary and unjust) but rather are based around sanitation (and thus likely very just and appropriate). The bit about "where food comes from" was entirely an aside, trying to explain why the butchering would be shocking.

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
And yes, PETA does have direct links to both ALF and ELF in that PETA has directly funded both groups in the past, not only in lawyer's fees, but also in the form of grants and in at least one instance, a flat payout.

Were this "payout" before or after the crime? I'm aware that PETA contributed to ALF's defense after the fact, but that was almost 30 years ago with no evidence to suggest (must less charge) for criminal conspiracy

Coronado received a monetary grant from PETA, and after committing arson, his father received a flat payout for no reason other than (speculation, but not far reaching here) it would look very bad for PETA to pay the arsonist directly.

 Firehead158 wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 Firehead158 wrote:
I call dibs on the redhead in the middle. Just need to get her a tan, and tighten up that belly, and we're good to go.

Ya know, I don't discourage topless protests. Why can't the protestors be the girls from the Hooters calendar or something like that? Dumb hippies.

Are you a very beautiful man?

Oh, I am sure he has rippling six-pack abs and a flowing mane of hair so silken and luxurious that women fall to their knees when he passes them on the street. Yep. I am sure of it.

Other than the hair, describes me perfectly. Only hippies have long hair.

...but it was a joke. I was objectifying women. At least they shaved their pits.

Keep fighting the good fight. Gotta keep those Hooters wings flowing and the hippies at bay. Amirite, bro?

I bow to your sophisticated taste in cuisine and women, especially since such paragons of their classes can be found under the same grease-stained roof. That is just genius masquerading as a simple economy of choice. Wings and peroxide? Fried pickles and shimmering pantyhose? All in one place? Perfection. But, all of that pales in comparison of your rapier wit and cutting sense of humor which, as your previous posts demonstrate, is a shining light in this drab, unfunny world. You have brought humor to the situation of women's rights and given us all an example to aspire to. I am truly moved and feel shame for even beginning to question your profound insight into the world of gender discrimination, humor, and depilation.

Consider me schooled as I wander off to sulk and think about how you are truly a god among men.

 azazel the cat wrote:
Fair enough. Allow me to explain:
My point is that the reason Femen as protesting, is the enequal treatment that women receive in the Islamist world, which is most strictly demonstrated in the form of its moral-based laws. (hence, the "feth your morals" slogans). By protesting topless, Femen is clearly demonstrating this inequality, as if men were to perform the same action, they would likely not be punished, as there are no laws against men going shirtless that I am aware of. This protest serves two purposes: first, as outlined, it serves to highlight this inequality. And second, it draws attention to a peaceful protest because, well, breasts.

Now, if PETA wanted to make a statement that was both shocking (in the sense that it grabs headlines) and peaceful, then they would likely need to do something similar to Femen, in the sense that Femen is making a scene of disobeying an unjust law in public (and thus demonstrating that law's injustice. So for PETA, this would likely need to be something along the lines of butchering an animal publicly, in order to draw awareness of how animals are slaughtered for our consumption. However, I digress, as even that would likely not have the same substance beyond the shock & awe effect; as the laws against butchering in public (which is what PETA would be breaking) are not based in morality (and thus arbitrary and unjust) but rather are based around sanitation (and thus likely very just and appropriate). The bit about "where food comes from" was entirely an aside, trying to explain why the butchering would be shocking.

Ok, that is slightly easier to follow. I still find the premise about the difference between men and women's physiology and the effect on the law regarding exposure above the waist a distraction as many Western countries also prohibit females from exposing their breasts in public, except under certain situations. So there isn't a firm Western consensus on the issue.
The fact that FEMEN thought that the best way to show the inequality of women in Tunisia was to say that women can't go topless when men can comes across as very ignorant of some of the more real and serious problems that women can face under Sharia law - female genital mutilation, so-called honor killings, being stoned to death for adultery (or in some instances rape), having fewer inheritance rights, having their word count for less than a man's etc. Also they are dealing with a religious faith that can be very conservative and distrustful of Western ideas. Turning up unannounced and showing massive disrespect for the customs of the country they are protesting in does not help those being repressed achieve equality. What it has done instead is give a conservative faith and it's adherents even more reason not to give women equality (or even to move towards a more liberal society), as they may see the protest as an example of what happens when they do.
Judging by much of the reaction the only real recipient of attention was FEMEN, rather than the issue that they wanted to highlight. Again, very similar to the results that PETA manage to obtain with stunts such as;
- veggie sex Superbowl commercial
- comparing meat eaters to Nazis/serial killers
- BDSM protest over cows
- naked female BBQ with the "Meat Is Murder" slogan
- breast milk ice cream
And none of these stunts in a liberal Western democracy have garnered much public support. FEMEN's stunt in a much less tolerant country just looks even more ill advised and publicity seeking than a constructive attempt to highlight the issue

 azazel the cat wrote:
Coronado received a monetary grant from PETA, and after committing arson, his father received a flat payout for no reason other than (speculation, but not far reaching here) it would look very bad for PETA to pay the arsonist directly.

So was this entirely after the fact and with no evidence to suggest that it was for services rendered? Everything I have read suggested no direct link between PETA and ALF (as I showed above), I was unaware that there was a direct link, have you a source for this?

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
Fair enough. Allow me to explain:
My point is that the reason Femen as protesting, is the enequal treatment that women receive in the Islamist world, which is most strictly demonstrated in the form of its moral-based laws. (hence, the "feth your morals" slogans). By protesting topless, Femen is clearly demonstrating this inequality, as if men were to perform the same action, they would likely not be punished, as there are no laws against men going shirtless that I am aware of. This protest serves two purposes: first, as outlined, it serves to highlight this inequality. And second, it draws attention to a peaceful protest because, well, breasts.

Now, if PETA wanted to make a statement that was both shocking (in the sense that it grabs headlines) and peaceful, then they would likely need to do something similar to Femen, in the sense that Femen is making a scene of disobeying an unjust law in public (and thus demonstrating that law's injustice. So for PETA, this would likely need to be something along the lines of butchering an animal publicly, in order to draw awareness of how animals are slaughtered for our consumption. However, I digress, as even that would likely not have the same substance beyond the shock & awe effect; as the laws against butchering in public (which is what PETA would be breaking) are not based in morality (and thus arbitrary and unjust) but rather are based around sanitation (and thus likely very just and appropriate). The bit about "where food comes from" was entirely an aside, trying to explain why the butchering would be shocking.

Ok, that is slightly easier to follow. I still find the premise about the difference between men and women's physiology and the effect on the law regarding exposure above the waist a distraction as many Western countries also prohibit females from exposing their breasts in public, except under certain situations. So there isn't a firm Western consensus on the issue.
The fact that FEMEN thought that the best way to show the inequality of women in Tunisia was to say that women can't go topless when men can comes across as very ignorant of some of the more real and serious problems that women can face under Sharia law - female genital mutilation, so-called honor killings, being stoned to death for adultery (or in some instances rape), having fewer inheritance rights, having their word count for less than a man's etc. Also they are dealing with a religious faith that can be very conservative and distrustful of Western ideas. Turning up unannounced and showing massive disrespect for the customs of the country they are protesting in does not help those being repressed achieve equality. What it has done instead is give a conservative faith and it's adherents even more reason not to give women equality (or even to move towards a more liberal society), as they may see the protest as an example of what happens when they do.

Well, the fact that it's also a problem of inequality in many Western nations does not alleviate the fact that it is a problem in the Islamic world. While you do bring up several good point, of which I agree with most, if not all, I think that this particular protest action is more effective because it does not detract from awareness of problems like genital mutilation, and I fail to see how you think otherwise, beyond the fallacy of believing that Femen is harming awareness of a more serious issue by focusing on a less serious one. That would be like saying we are hindering our ability to find a cure for AIDS by also trying to find a cure for Diabetes.

With regards to the disrespect of the local customs, that is also the point: the local customers should be disrespected because they endorse inequality. Respecting the local customs is to maintain the status quo. Would you have insisted that Europeans visiting in the US in the 19th century buy some slaves in order to respect the local customs? Or would you consider that to be an unjust practice that is not worthy of being respected by foreigners? I do understand the point you make about giving the hardline conservative fundamentalists fuel for their fire; I just happen to think that placating douchebags is not the right course of action.

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
Coronado received a monetary grant from PETA, and after committing arson, his father received a flat payout for no reason other than (speculation, but not far reaching here) it would look very bad for PETA to pay the arsonist directly.

So was this entirely after the fact and with no evidence to suggest that it was for services rendered? Everything I have read suggested no direct link between PETA and ALF (as I showed above), I was unaware that there was a direct link, have you a source for this?

No, I have no hard evidence directly linking it; it is entirely circumstantial. If there was direct evidence it was for services rendered, then PETA would be listed as a domestic terrorist group just like ALF. However, guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law is a higher standard than I personally require when it comes to PETA. While I'm sure PETA did not receive a receipt for "1 count of arson", it is my belief that PETA's grant given to Coronado, coupled with his previous issues teaching how to construct incendiary bombs and preaching for their use, followed by the payout to Coronado's father, and augmented by the philosophy of PETA's co-founder is more than enough to say that PETA endorsed his acts of arson.

There are running conspiracy theories that many animal rights extremists used PETA to fund more extreme individuals and groups in the animal rights movement back in the 90's. However PETA has been heavily restructured over the last ten years internally and I don't think people talk much about that happening anymore.

 azazel the cat wrote:
Ok, that is slightly easier to follow. I still find the premise about the difference between men and women's physiology and the effect on the law regarding exposure above the waist a distraction as many Western countries also prohibit females from exposing their breasts in public, except under certain situations. So there isn't a firm Western consensus on the issue.
The fact that FEMEN thought that the best way to show the inequality of women in Tunisia was to say that women can't go topless when men can comes across as very ignorant of some of the more real and serious problems that women can face under Sharia law - female genital mutilation, so-called honor killings, being stoned to death for adultery (or in some instances rape), having fewer inheritance rights, having their word count for less than a man's etc. Also they are dealing with a religious faith that can be very conservative and distrustful of Western ideas. Turning up unannounced and showing massive disrespect for the customs of the country they are protesting in does not help those being repressed achieve equality. What it has done instead is give a conservative faith and it's adherents even more reason not to give women equality (or even to move towards a more liberal society), as they may see the protest as an example of what happens when they do.

Well, the fact that it's also a problem of inequality in many Western nations does not alleviate the fact that it is a problem in the Islamic world. While you do bring up several good point, of which I agree with most, if not all, I think that this particular protest action is more effective because it does not detract from awareness of problems like genital mutilation, and I fail to see how you think otherwise, beyond the fallacy of believing that Femen is harming awareness of a more serious issue by focusing on a less serious one. That would be like saying we are hindering our ability to find a cure for AIDS by also trying to find a cure for Diabetes.

With regards to the disrespect of the local customs, that is also the point: the local customers should be disrespected because they endorse inequality. Respecting the local customs is to maintain the status quo. Would you have insisted that Europeans visiting in the US in the 19th century buy some slaves in order to respect the local customs? Or would you consider that to be an unjust practice that is not worthy of being respected by foreigners? I do understand the point you make about giving the hardline conservative fundamentalists fuel for their fire; I just happen to think that placating douchebags is not the right course of action.

I think there's room for multiple approaches. If a small minority of people acting against misogynistic practices and attitudes are confrontational and offensive, maybe the more reasonable and moderate folks will be welcomed a bit more easily.