Pro vs Anti

In the past 24 hours, I have heard of four separate references to animal rights activists. 1. Oprah reported that Pet store owners have experienced violence after she aired the puppy mill show, and she said of course she does not support violence. 2. I received a bulk email at work warning us of the anti-vivisection protest, and the email said watch for "suspicious" people, and they are not expecting violence, but security will be present. 3. A coworker stated that she did not want to go near protesters for fear of what they may do. 4. Then I met someone who claimed that animal activists are just crazy lunatics.

Statistically, as far as I know, there has never been any physical injuries to anyone by an animal rights activist. I can understand that the meat, dairy, and entertainment industries want to promote a negative image of animal activists, but it is hard to believe that common everyday people have this horrible stereotype of us. Fitting into society is not my concern, but as a movement, I think it is important that the mass population does not view us as violent. This negative stereotype makes people resistant to our message before they even hear us.

I'm just curious to get others opinions...do you think most people have the negative stereotype of activists, is this stereotype problematic for the animal rights movement, and if so, what can be done about it?

I think that one thing that would help the animal rights movement is if we focus on what we DO want. We want peace for animals, we want animal liberation, we want animals to live full natural/comfortable lives. Yet, so many times our message is "Anti-Fur," "Anti-vivisection," and "Anti factory-farm." I think we should march "Pro Faux," "Pro Alternatives to animal research," and "Pro compassionate diets."

Standing "PRO" accomplishes several things: 1-It does not inherently target an industry, thereby making them feel threatened and defensive (As we know, threatened billionaire industries actively create legislation against us). 2-It does not alienate us from mainstream society (example: how many Americans would be "Pro Faux" vs "anti leather") 3-There is much more power in a positive message than a negative one.

I would be curious to know the outcome if the Pro-Life movement never labeled themselves as Pro-Life, but only as Anti-abortion. This PRO philosophy has been around for centuries. Here is a good quote from Mother Teresa "I was once asked why I don't participate in anti-war demonstrations. I said that I will never do that, but as soon as you have a pro-peace rally, I'll be there."

Side note: If you wikipedia "animal liberation movement" it says that we are sometimes called the "animal personhood" movement. Has anyone heard of "animal personhood"??

Mali, semantics are important and are campaign-specific. Sometimes you want a message that is evangelical (Pro) and sometimes you want one that is prophylactic (anti-). Generally, I think activists could be better at presenting a sunnier face to the public. Activists who write and speak about people's clothing and food choices as abetting "rape" and "murder" probably aren't very persuasive since they insult the audience they're trying to persuade (even though these activists may be correct in their view). However, given that the idea is to prevent human behavior that causes tragic suffering to so many, I understand the grim visages that many activists bear.

To address your three points about the virtues of "Pro":
1) Sometimes we want to expose industries and companies. A general "pro" veg (for example) message doesn't do that. Video of a meat packing plant forcing downer animals into America's food supply does.

2) We can use semantics to make our message consistent with American values regarding kindness and mercy toward animals. Agreed.

3) Disagree with your 3rd point. It's campaign specific again. What are you trying to accomplish? That informs you as to what your message should be.

J may have additional thoughts if he sees this board.

Mali, semantics are important and are campaign-specific. Sometimes you want a message that is evangelical (Pro) and sometimes you want one that is prophylactic (anti-).

This Pro vs Anti philosophy is not just about semantics. It is about our focus and where our energy is spent.


Generally, I think activists could be better at presenting a sunnier face to the public. Activists who write and speak about people's clothing and food choices as abetting "rape" and "murder" probably aren't very persuasive since they insult the audience they're trying to persuade (even though these activists may be correct in their view). However, given that the idea is to prevent human behavior that causes tragic suffering to so many, I understand the grim visages that many activists bear.

All animal activists have anger and sadness knowing what the animals are going through. I don't think putting on a sunny face is necessarily appropriate. Pro vs Anti does not translate to sunny vs grim. It's about focusing our intention on what we DO want, instead of putting all of our energy into what we don't want.


1) Sometimes we want to expose industries and companies. A general "pro" veg (for example) message doesn't do that. Video of a meat packing plant forcing downer animals into America's food supply does.

I think video exposure of animal cruelty shows the truth and should absolutely be used. The more often, the better. We can show the cruelty, and still be Pro compassionate diet. The audience watching the video has common sense enough to realize we are anti-factory farm when they see the video. But our energy, words, and overall message can be Pro compassionate diet. Again, I'm not saying sugar coat animal cruelty. I think we can be fiercer, better, stronger activists with a Pro message and still expose the suffering of animals.


2) We can use semantics to make our message consistent with American values regarding kindness and mercy toward animals. Agreed.

Semantics is only a small part of this. I don't think we should backdown on exposing the cruelty and be nice nice nice just to get people to hear us. It's a clear choice. If we are anti leather, we are part of a small group. If we are Pro-faux we are part of a large group. The makers of fake and man-made materials will be on our side. In the end, we can accomplish the same goal, no fur.


3) Disagree with your 3rd point. It's campaign specific again. What are you trying to accomplish? That informs you as to what your message should be.

What am I trying to accomplish? Freedom for animals. Every campaign I will ever be a part of, my ultimate goal will always be freedom for animals. The pro message can be used in every campaign just as effectively, if not more so, as the anti message. I really don't want to have a long philosophical discussion on a message board, but I highly recommend watching "The Secret" by Rhonda Byrne. Even if you think the philosophy is garbage, it is thought-provoking.