Stumblng Tumblr sent along this PSA from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, along with this comment:
I am confident that the animal-protection video to which I've linked in this
post...will astonish you.
Indeed it did.
Thanks, ST!
8 comments:
April 25, 2008 at 11:46 AM
That is one of the most disturbing things I have ever seen.
Just, wow.
April 25, 2008 at 3:08 PM
Makes sense to me. Someone who was abusive to animals as a child could very easily translate that behaviour to a spouse, or other significant other, later in life. The clip and voice over shows that connection pretty well. The video's pretty disturbing, but that's the point, isn't it?
April 25, 2008 at 4:02 PM
The PETA 'Holocaust on Your Plate' ad campaign was a lot more disturbing and offensive.
April 25, 2008 at 7:27 PM
I would chalk this up to the intentional use of ambiguity to confuse and slow down interpretation in the effort to cause reflection. The woman in this case stands in for the dog (whose voice we hear). Presumably it is thought that this will appear more disturbing if it is a 'person' being beaten than a dog. Which is probably not true but maybe significantly more difficult to film someone beating a dog (don't know about that though).
April 25, 2008 at 10:54 PM
Trying to stop abuse of women before it happens is terribly misguided? I wasn't astonished, it's a scare tactic, but unlike protesters outside clinics with gross-out pictures, this commercial has a good purpose. (This is, of course, assuming that one considers women's rights good and abuse bad)
April 26, 2008 at 5:16 AM
What disturbs me are that the woman is the stand-in for the dog and that some folks are simply more horrified by the image of an animal being battered than a woman. And, I wonder if in this ad the viewer's attention to the representation of the offender - that is, a white male offender - is lost and shouldn't be.
April 26, 2008 at 2:23 PM
This pisses me off. The ad isn't saying, "Stop being cruel to animals because that's horrible," it's saying, "Don't be cruel to animals as a child because you WILL grow up to abuse your spouse."
April 27, 2008 at 2:21 AM
Trying to stop abuse of women before it happens is terribly misguided? I wasn't astonished, it's a scare tactic, but unlike protesters outside clinics with gross-out pictures, this commercial has a good purpose. (This is, of course, assuming that one considers women's rights good and abuse bad)-My old post
"What disturbs me are that the woman is the stand-in for the dog and that some folks are simply more horrified by the image of an animal being battered than a woman." It's important to remember humans are animals. If people were more horrified by a dog being beaten wouldn't the dog be shown? Maybe you are referring to the use of the dog vocals, this is done to draw the connection between dog abuse and woman abuse.
"This pisses me off. The ad isn't saying, 'Stop being cruel to animals because that's horrible,' it's saying, 'Don't be cruel to animals as a child because you WILL grow up to abuse your spouse.'" People in general are anthropocentric. Many hold the view that Kant did, that non-humans are a means to an end, humans are an end in themselves and to abuse of non-humans is undesirable because it can lead to abuse of humans.
Post a Comment