Feeling for a fur-favoring fashion editor PETA pied in the puss, LAmom lamented:
Is this harmless protesting? … I don’t think so. I have no problem with people denouncing and even embarrassing those whom they consider to be wrongdoers. But pieing is a use of force, an act of violence.
PETA’s politics aside (like most folks, I have a lot of problems with anything PETA-associated), I don’t think LAmom really answered her own question. Where’s the harm? Since LAmom defines an incident in which, apparently, no physical harm was done as “violence,” then she can’t logically establish that harm was done merely by saying it was “an act of violence.”
I enjoy pie-protests. Not because I believe that pies are an effective method of creating change, but because I resent the people who have the gall, the conceit, the pomposity, the arrogance to rule over the rest of us, whether it’s a corporate journalist, a corporate CEO, or a politician. A pie in the face, far more than other forms of protest, seems aimed at that arrogance.
In fact, I don’t think pieing is an act of protest at all. Pie in the face is terrorism (one pie-throwing group calls itself “Al Pieda”) crossed with decency – revenge conducted by people too civilized to use bombs.
I’m with you Amp. I don’t think it’s an effective form of protest (I don’t think individual actions are ever effective form of protest), but I’m not going to go around hand-wringing about it is violence. As far as harm goes, pie-ing doesn’t even make the scale.
Look, hitting someone in the face with a pie is a battery. It’s an unauthorized touching. If we’re going to start defining things as non-violent because no harm was caused, don’t be surprised when you get results you don’t want (he hit her, your honor, but it was just a light slap! she wasn’t harmed . . . ditto sexual assault). Violating another person’s body by laying hands on them without their consent (and especially as here, when you are deliberately attempting to humiliate them) should be viewed as an act of violence, even if you really, really don’t like the person’s occupation.
I agree with Law-talking girl. Touching should be with consent only. And being ‘too civilized to use bombs’ is crucial but doesn’t actually amount to much.
I look at the other pie-throwing protests–the one against Bill Gates, Ann Coulter, etc., and I have to ask–did they do anything besides waste a perfectly good pie?
And my other question is: Did PETA use a pie that was made with no dairy or eggs?
So is it also ok if “Americans for Decency and Morality” take it upon themselves to pie people as they enter the GLAAD Awards? Or if Ladies Against Feminism throw rotten tomatoes at actresses performing The Vagina Monologues? Maybe some enterprising MRA types could use super-soakers to squirt fruit punch at women taking part in a Take Back the Night march.
I don’t know that it rates as “violence”, but it’s profoundly obnoxious behavior. And I have serious reservations about anyone who gets their jollies out of humiliating other people, no matter how powerful or arrogant they may be.
And what if it is, for example, a peanut-butter pie, and the person has nut allergies? It seems that there is a lot of room for something like this to go terribly wrong.
Yeah, I mean, let’s say you did this to Rush Limbaugh. He’s got inner-ear problems, which can lead to seriously poor balance. And he’s got a disease that’s often treated with drugs that cause one’s bones to thin prematurely. It’s actually entirely possible that, if caught off-guard by a pie to the face, he could fall down and break a hip. And at that point, it stops being funny, even if it is Rush Limbaugh. We happen to know about Rush Limbaugh’s medical problems, because he’s discussed them publicly, but do you know which corporate CEOs have autoimmune inner ear disease?
but do you know which corporate CEOs have autoimmune inner ear disease?
Not to mention recent eye surgery. I’m with Law-talking girl; this is battery. The issue is consent, not the amount of harm done. There isn’t any physical damage in the typical ass-pinch or boob-grab of the masher, but I don’t want the green light given to those clods because of a “where’s the harm” standard.
Also, those tactics of protest bring more heat than light, and turn off potential allies. And if getting your (or your organization’s) name in the papers is more important to you than organizing allies and gaining political clout….you’re not really protesting. Pig blood was spilled on the steps of the Illinois State Capitol during the ERA heyday; it had a very negative effect on the movement. Middle-of-the-road people saw feminists as the “weird pig’s blood people” after that. The actions of a literal handful of people killed the credibility of the movement with those who were not already sympathetic, at a time when plenty of hearts and minds could have been won. Now, over twenty years later, lobbying for ERA has started again in Illinois—but the spectre of the pig’s blood still remains, and is still mentioned in newspaper articles about it.
When I was in my nursing/midwifery training, it was drilled into us that ANY touching has to be consensual. If we put a Band-Aid on someone who doesn’t want us to, it’s battery.
Love your opening sentence, by the way.
It’s one of those things that I really wish I could consider OK, but that’s just too much potential for damaging a nice suit, unreasonable infringement on personal space, and too much follow-through (resulting in actual injury). Just because a pie-ing doesn’t usually cause harm doesn’t mean it should be generally legal. If you need to humiliate someone, it’s gotta be done with the power of your words, not by physically forcing them into submission.
Now, if the majority of public speaking arenas had speakers sign pie waivers, just in case, I’d be down with that. “I’m sorry, Mr. Senator, but I’m afraid our venue cannot compromise on the pie exception.”
Amp, your argument comes down to one thing: You like seeing these jerks get hit in the face with a pie. Period. Side arguments about how nobody was really hurt, they deserve it, it’s not “really” violence, etc. are just window dressing. You’re judging an attack by what you think of the victim.
Would it be OK if some feminist-hating types ‘protested’ a Take Back the Night march by grabbing women’s asses? As long as they did so gently enough not to cause any harm, of course.
Saying “it’s illegal” is a bullshit answer, by the way. So’s hitting somebody in the face with a pie.
i’m not Amp, but i damn well do like seeing jerks hit in the face with pie. claiming that it’s more violent than “mere” words only flies so far with me; most of the people targeted for a public pie in the face tend to have enough power — political, economical or sociocultural — that their words alone can do far more damage than any pastry. in fact, for such a protest to make any real sense, it pretty much has to be aimed at somebody who already has done some form of harm, if perhaps not direct physical injury.
true, it may not be “ok” in a purely theoretical, ethical sense. but let’s not imagine that the people who’re getting stuck with the dry-cleaning bills are any more innocent than the pie-throwers, in general or in most particulars. as crime and punishment goes — even as simple vengeance goes — i’d rather have the pies than many of the more visceral alternatives i can think of.
Nomen Nescio: uhh, no.
PETA’s in-your-face, “direct action” “protests”, from the pie-in-the-face to the paint-on-the-clothes, have all been directed specifically at women. They do not use these tactics against men. Why? Because they are afraid they’d get their clocks cleaned, that’s why. It has fuck-all to do with ideology, and everything to do with the pre-existing notion that unwanted touching is the price that women have to pay in exchange for leaving the house. Fuck PETA. This is some more of their misogynistic bullshit.
I’m still waiting for the day the anti-leather PETA goes into biker bars with their tofu pies and red paint, soiling the leather colors of the Sons of Silence, the Outlaws, Hell’s Angels, etc. That’ll be the day.
Well, I checked, and the pie was a tofu pie. Gross. I like tofu, but not in pie.
People who’ve gotten pies in the face as protests:
Bill Gates, Marguerite Duras, Jean-Luc Godard, and Bernard-Henri Levy.
Frank Loy, a US diplomat at the UN Climate Change Conference.
Monsato Chairman Robert Shapiro.
Fred Phelps.
William Rolleston of the Pro GE lobby group New Zealand Life Sciences Network.
You can read more “communiques” (ahem) here from a a pie-throwing group.
Granted, it never occurred to me that this was assault, but it should have. But this has happened how many times before? Has it ever changed one damn thing? No. You know why? Because it’s fucking stupid.
The main pie-throwing group on this side of the pond, the Biotic Baking Brigade, is a weird mix of irreverent and earnest. But their pie-throwing antics are, well. old. Not to mention ineffective.
And La Lubu, word. I’ve never liked PETA, mainly because they are a bunch of misogynist assclowns. They’ve never gone after one of the Oakland raiders for wearing leather, but they’ll go after women in fur. That’s bullshit. And it’s hypocritical.
PETA are a bunch of loons who make me want to don a fur coat out of sheer loathing for them and their tactics. La Lubu is right – PETA don’t have the cojones to go to a biker rally and pie a few leather-wearing, burly bikers, they confine their activities to humiliating women and euthanizing pets. PETA gives legitimate animal-rights folks a bad name.
Nonviolent actions in protest, as run by groups like Greenpeace, do involve lawbreaking, and sometimes vandalism (albiet temporary vandalism) but they never involve this sort of thing.
Preach it, La Lubu.
i’d rather have the pies than many of the more visceral alternatives i can think of
Oh, now there’s a convincing argument: there are worse things, so it’s OK.
Law-talking Girl—I think it’s pushing it to compare pieing with sexual harassment. Your working definition of “harm” is purely physical, and ignores both the emotional harm that most sexual harassment is *intended* to cause, and the dismissal of another person’s humanity (the idea that the harasser deserves his fun more than victim does her dignity) that is in effect during all sexual harassment.
You might quibble with me over that “harasser’s fun vs. victim’s dignity” bit not being applicable to these pie incidents, but the difference that I see is that in pie incidents, the pieing is *in* *response* to something; the person hit with the pie has *done* *something* to inspire the pieing, whereas a sexual harassment victim has not. People get harassed solely because harassers decide to have fun at their expense. People get pied because they’ve offended or outraged pie-ers. If they *haven’t* done something, then that’s a different story, and would be in poor taste, but I think pieing is on the outer edge of acceptable free speech—harmless enough to be allowable, but severe enough to need to be in the context of a response to something, not an opening volley.
Besides, there’s usually something left in the pie tin for the person hit with it to throw back at the thrower. (Which is why I personally prefer maple-syrup balloons. But once again, this requires some justification—throwing a pie or a substance-filled balloon at someone in the mall because you recognize them from a protest at an abortion clinic is not acceptable. Throwing it at someone who’s actively protesting, and not the hangers-on but the ones with the particularly offensive sign, or the one who’s cursing the loudest at a patient who’s already crying, or the one who’s been there every day with the intention of shutting the place down, is great. Just don’t miss. It’s a wasste of perfectly good food.)
By the way, that blood-red slimy substance that fur-protesters are said to throw at people wearing furs? The intent there is destruction of property, and therefore becomes vandalism. It’s “all in good fun” only as long as whatever you throw can be cleaned up relatively easily.
The question is, does pie-ing accomplish anything constructive? Or, as La Lubu suggests, does it make the people doing the pie-ing, and the groups associated with such people, look kooky, unbalanced, or just plain bad?
Pieing just seems like a pointless waste of food at the least, and makes whoever doing the pieing look like a nut at the worst. Did King, Gandhi, and Mandela accomplish their aims by judicious applications of meringue?
Maybe I should add a couple things.
1) I’m not trying to offend anyone who disagrees with me and Amp, but to submit logical arguments as to why I believe it. If you can come up with something logical and polite to counter my arguments, be my guest. If all you’re going to do is accuse me of insensitivity, save it.
2) The right to be offensive is not a one-way street. It belongs to everybody. We don’t have goon squads shutting up Michael Moore, or Eminem, or the Nazi party, or Ann Coulter, and we don’t have goon squads dousing burning US flags or confiscating models of bloody fetuses or impounding pies. The price of having freedom of expression is that people you disagree with have it too. Yes there are limits, but I think this falls on the inside of them, distasteful as it is to some people.
3) Damn. Have to go; my ride is leaving. I’ll finish later.
Amp, Nomen Nescio, reddecca, I don’t get how you don’t see a pie in the face as violence. Is it ok just because you don’t like the people or don’t agree with the people it is done to? That doesn’t seem right. I don’t like a number of people, I wouldn’t throw something at them. If a man didn’t like the dinner his wife or girlfriend fixed, could he throw it in her face and that would be ok, if she wasn’t actually hurt? Or would it be ok if it was just the pie? Physically assaulting anyone is never ok, even if they don’t sustain damage.
Kyra says
People get pied because they’ve offended or outraged pie-ers. If they *haven’t* done something, then that’s a different story, and would be in poor taste, but I think pieing is on the outer edge of acceptable free speechÂharmless enough to be allowable, but severe enough to need to be in the context of a response to something, not an opening volley.
So, if gays or lesbians get pie-ed., that’s ok, they offended or outraged someone. What if a woman going into a abortion clinic got pie-ed? Would that be ok? She is offending and outraging some folks. Would it be ok to pie a solder returning from duty if one were outraged and offended by the war?
The price of having freedom of expression is that people you disagree with have it too. Yes there are limits, but I think this falls on the inside of them, distasteful as it is to some people.
Freedom of expression is writing articles, making art, demonstrating, posting political cartoons, lampooning or making fun of people in print or in person. It is not assaulting them. That is why it is called “assault”. A pie in the face is a physical assault and is never warranted. It may seem a silly thing but people can be hurt.
I really don’t think you have a right to fling a pie at someone just because you don’t agree with them. As Mousehound points out, does that mean it’s OK for a homophobe to pie gays going about their business just because he doesn’t like them? Is it OK for me to pie SUV drivers in the Albertson’s parking lot because I think they’re destroying the environment?
I am against pieing. Because it’s a waste of food, because it makes one’s side look stupid, and because it has NEVER accomplished ANYTHING. I can’t think of one single civil-rights, feminist, or environmental victory that has been scored with a pie in the face.
I can’t speak for the others – but it’s not that I don’t think pie-ing is violent, it’s that I don’t really care.
I’m fundamentally apathetic to pie-ing, I don’t think it’s effective or worthwhile, but I’m not going to get worked up about it. I don’t care what happens to the rich and powerful of this world.
The difference to me, between a pie-ing and most of the examples in this thread is the power relationship. I object to violence on two grounds, because it causes harm, and because it maintains power relationships.
Although I’m not defending pie-ing, I think it’s a waste of time.
I haven’t exactly been pied, but I have had an egg thrown at my face while I was riding my bicycle. It was remarkably upsetting, and the issue didn’t seem to be the endangerment (fortunately, it hit my lower face rather than my eyes) but the humiliation. I don’t think my feelings would have been much different if I’d been a high status person, or even a high status person who’d been doing a lot of damage.
Pie-ing is about power relationships, and it’s the power of the pie-er over the pie-ee.
All things considered, I’d rather have someone give me a shove or a light slap than hit me with a pie. There’s something very belittling about pieing; it deprives the pied of dignity, and says that for this moment, they are made a figure of fun in the public square for our amusement. (Though it sounds like that’s exactly what pie-advocates like about pieing: it “puts them in their place.” Hmm, who else gets “put in their place” by people touching them without permission?) Maybe this still isn’t close enough to the dignitary/emotional harms of harassment for you, but it seems analogous.
Arguing that the harassed hasn’t done anything to deserve harassment is a loser as well, unless you want to leave to wannabe gropers the task of determining what kinds of insults and (non-physical) injuries can justify humiliating a woman in that way. If your female boss fires you for no reason, can you cop a free feel to get back at her?
Mousehounde’s points about throwing dinner or pieing women at abortion clinics make the implications of pieing very plain. If you think throwing things is an appropriate response to being offended, I hope you remember how great that schadenfreude felt when Fred Phelps & Co. smear meringue all over some gay man’s weeping mother at his funeral.
One of the justifications for the First Amendment is that it permits a full and free exchange of ideas, with the hope that good ideas will rise to the top. To the extent that physical intimidation is used to wage this war of ideas, we run the risk of chilling speech and undermining this justification. Do we really want debate to include food fights? Regular fights? Do you think that one won’t segue smoothly into the other? Pieing is not free expression or protected symbolic speech or any of that. It is battery. A fist is not an idea, a pie is not an argument, and all these PETA pie throwers should get a few nights in the pokey.
I’m with Law-Talking Girl, La Labu, Mythago, and Mousehounde on this one. Too bad the assault aspect doesn’t get spelled out in the media reports.
And here’s the problem with the freedom of expression argument: most of these pieings don’t actually bring any issues to light. You’re not actually communicating, you’re assaulting.
No one has any idea what these clowns stand for, and there’s no way for anyone who agrees with them to effect change. The MO gets more attention than the message, which is garbled.
As someone who was egged by some kids on a Devil’s Night spree, let me say that a new set of contacts and a ruined winter coat later, I didn’t feel the victim of a “harmless prank”! Certainly pie is less destructive than an egg, but you have no way of knowing what damage could be done in a concrete manner (contacts, broken glasses, bruised nose, allergic reaction) in addition to the simple violence of the throw/hit itself. I agree with law-talking girl and others who think that the line between shouting and other forms of humiliation-as-political-protest and actual physical violence is a real one that we shouldn’t be cavalier about. To add to other examples above, would pies be ok outside abortion clinics (presuming pure conscience on the part of the pro-lifer as for the pro-mink protester)? If not, then you’re holding a double standard. I think Mythago may be onto something about your feeling about these particular victims. yuck.
…the difference that I see is that in pie incidents, the pieing is *in* *response* to something; the person hit with the pie has *done* *something* to inspire the pieing, whereas a sexual harassment victim has not.
Everybody thinks that their own viewpoint is the acceptable one. Abusive men always think their wives have done something to deserve it. Pardon me, but walking down the street in a fur coat doesn’t strike me as “asking for” a pie any more than cooking the wrong dinner “asks for” a smack in the jaw (or a verbal torrent). One person’s justification is another’s self-righteousness or dementia. Let’s just stick to nonviolence and let the best argument win, rather than assuming that we (the violence-chooser) are starting from the winning/justified side!
I pretty much agree with Redecca: The reason violence is objectionable is because 1) it harms people, or 2) it re-enforces existing oppressive power relationships. Lacking those two elements, I don’t see any reason to find pie-throwing a big deal.
Saying “violence is bad,” full stop, without any explanation for why violence is bad, is a morally empty position.
Law-talking girl writes:
Welcome, pie-talking girl. And yup, pieing is belittling – that’s the whole point.
Regarding your various arguments by example, you’re completely ignoring two important issues – power relationships and the unusual position of public figures. Pie-throwing is about upending existing power relationships between the ruling elite and the rest of us; harassment is about re-enforcing patriarchal power relationships between men and women.
This difference – between upending and re-enforcing oppressive power relationships – is absolutely essential, but is completely ignored in your analysis (and in the analysis of most pie-opponents here).
Second of all, public figures are not in the same position as the rest of us. For me to make a series of cartoons mocking my supervisor cruelly, and to put those cartoons on billboards all over the city and getting it printed in newspapers, is not legally “assault”; but would be wrong to subject her to humiliation like that, even if she were a bad boss. But if I did the exact same thing but made Doug Daft (Coke’s CEO) my target, that would be perfectly fair.
Public figures have made themselves fair targets in a way that none of your examples (a boss, women at abortion clinics, gay man’s weeping mother) have, which – along with your utter refusal to acknowledge power relations – is why none of your arguments by example hold any water.
Pieing public figures for the humor value (and the revenge) has been going on for nearly forty years, without causing the marketplace of ideas to be replaced by fistfighting. Since the slippery slope you’re arguing hasn’t slipped at all in nearly 4 decades, I think you’re mistaken to think it’s a real concern.
And how’s that working out?
Do you really think that our current system provides a “full and free exchange of ideas” between the most powerful, wealthy people on the planet and those who oppose them? Of course not; the people with money and power have a hundred times the ability to communicate their ideas fully and freely. The free speech ideal you refer to has entirely collapsed in our society; apart from a tiny elite, virtually no one has significant access to any exchange of ideas that matter in the US today. (Al Gore, of all people, gave an excellent speech on this subject earlier this month).
(Anyhow, that’s a diversion from our discussion – obviously, I’m not claiming that pie-throwing is a solution to our broken, elitist political culture. I think pie-throwing is good because it’s funny and pretty harmless, not because it’s effective speech or advocacy).
ACM, we cross-posted, but I think my response to Law-talking girl covers your post as well. Your examples completely ignore power relationships – the power relationship between one of the world’s richest CEOs, with power and police and society on his side, and some pie-thrower is NOT comparable to that between a battered wife and her husband, and nor is the harm done comparable. To even pretend that comparison makes any sense trivializes domestic violence.
Nor are any of the examples you use powerful public figures, which makes your examples irrelevant, in my view.
(And by the way, I’m sorry you were egged. I’ve been egged too, for what it’s worth.)
Doesn’t that seem like a complete trivialization of battery to you?
In the band-aid example, unlike someone pieing Dick Cheney, the “batterer” wasn’t even malicious. Isn’t there any room in your philosophy for mistaken but innocent touching?
How about tapping someone on the shoulder to ask them if they know what time it is, or to let them know they’ve sat in your seat? Is that the same as battery?
On the other hand, I can see the point if we limit it to just a specific situation, like someone providing medical care and a patient – in that case, refusing to allow any touch without explicit permission might be a way of fighting against the implicit power relationship that gives medical providers power over patients. So in that particular situation, I think the rule you describe is probably a good idea.
On the other hand, I don’t think we should make everything black-and-white. Touching can be wrong – like putting a band-aid on without remembering to ask explicit permission – but it’s still not the moral equivilent of beating someone up (which is what I think of as “battery”).
Thanks! At least someone noticed. :-P
Doesn’t that seem like a complete trivialization of battery to you?
No, it isn’t, Amp. As for things like ‘tapping on the shoulder,’ first-year law students learn that the ‘ordinary contact of daily life’ (somebody correct me on the formulaic wording) is not considered battery. Unwanted, deliberate contact is. If I grab your ass on the bus, it’s not legal or morally acceptable because I didn’t harm you, or because you’re a man and I’m a woman. If I shove you off the bus steps, it’s not legal as long as I didn’t leave marks.
“But nobody was harmed” is a batterer’s excuse.
Again, Amp, your argument comes down to this: you don’t like the people being pied, you get enjoyment out of seeing them pied, and that’s it. The stuff about how it’s not harmful or we shouldn’t be all black-and-white about battery is, frankly, disappointing. You are generally very thoughtful and I am sorry to see such intellectually dishonest twisting from you.
Using your criteria, here are some examples of pie-ing that would be OK:
–Antifeminist women pie-ing feminist men at a pro-choice rally. (Women are not supposed to be violent to men. Inverse power relationship.)
–Poor white men pie-ing a wealthy philanthropist at an event where that philanthropist is announcing a $10 million dollar gift to the ACLU. (Rich, powerful CEO; the attackers are disenfranchised, poor and powerless.)
–Black religious conservatives pie-ing a male celebrity at a GLAAD event.
And on and on. If it’s OK with you as long as the gap in power and money between victim and attacker is sufficiently large, then you’re going to have to suck it up when the politics don’t match yours.
If you still don’t get it, try this: It doesn’t work and doesn’t win anyone over. All it does is provide the pie-ers, and their sympathizers, with a few minute of vicarous pleasure. Wow, that’s a moral justification.
Amp, your analogy about your boss and Doug Daft doesn’t compare to pie-throwing. The issue in the analogy is right to privacy, while the issue (for me at least) about pie-ing is about the right to be not have ones physical boundaries being invaded by a pie. A pie is not a bullet, or a fist, but it’s unwelcome and unasked for anyway. I don’t think obnoxious people with great power deserve to have their boundaries being crossed physically, even if it’s “just for fun”, or “just a pie”.
Public figures are fair targets of criticism, but not any kind of physical violation. (Personally, I think the public figures are fair game [for something non-public figures aren’t] defense is a bit stretched, publicity is usually bestowed by media interest, not the public figure him/herself.)
Oy, cross-posted with mythago. Her analysis is spot-on.
That’s obviously not true, Mythago. Just because you disagree with my arguments, or find them weak, doesn’t mean they don’t exist or that I’m not sincere in putting them forward.
First of all, I’m not a powerful public figure, so this has nothing to do with my argument. Second of all, I think there’s an obvious difference between a sexual assault (however minor, like grabbing my butt) and a non-sexual assualt. Third, unless I’m insane, I can’t shove someone off the bus steps without a reasonable expectation that they’ll be injured – the same isn’t true of a pie in the face. Lastly, there’s no disagreement here about legality – there’s no question in my mind that pieing public figures is illegal.
Just because X is wrong when said in circumstance A, does not logically show X is wrong said in circumstance Y. For example, some conservatives use a “diversity” argument to argue that government committees should oversee who gets hired to academic departments; however, just because the “diversity” argument is wrong in that case, does not logically establish that it’s wrong in all cases.
Example 1: Pro-choice men at a rally are not powerful public figures, so no, that’s not what I’m defending. I think that legitimate pie-throwing must both be directed at powerful public figures, and be about inversing oppressive power relationships.
Example 2: I think that would be as legitimate as pieing any other rich, powerful CEO. I don’t agree with the particular politics involved, but so what?
Example 3: Ditto.
I don’t agree with every book out there, but that doesn’t mean I’m anti-books. I don’t agree with every protest out there, but that doesn’t mean I’m anti-protest. I don’t agree with every pie thrown, but that doesn’t mean I’m anti-pie-throwing. What about this is inconsistent?
This isn’t at issue – no one here is claiming that pieing is an effective means of bringing about change. It’s obviously not.
And I do “get it”; I just don’t agree.
The legal issue in the analogy is “right to privacy,” I suppose, but I wasn’t discussing the legal issue – I was discussing the moral issue. Morally, it’s acceptable to humiliate powerful public figures in public, in a way that humiliating my boss in public is not.
Okay, this may be a prime point of disagreement between us.
I don’t think someone like Doug Daft deserves a pie in the face. I think Doug Daft deserves to be slowly tortured to death with dull, rusty razors. I think he deserves to be torn limb from limb by the relatives of all the labor workers he’s contributed to killing (except I hate to think of them sullying themselves by touching scum like Daft).
But since he’s not going to get what he deserves, I, for one, will not tear my clothes with the pathos of it all if he gets a pie in the face.
I disagree. People don’t become CEO of huge corporations without being aware that it’s a public position; if they can’t stand the scrutiny, well, no one forced them to take that job rather than a more private job.
Keep in mind that some pie throwers have been charged in the past.
Protests, criticism, satritical articles/posts/skits/movies, sit-ins, teach-ins, legislative action, boycotts, etc. are all legitimate, effective ways to get a point across and take the powerful down a notch. An added bonus–it’s coherent, unlike pie-throwing.
This was far more effective in communicating what the protest was over and how evil Condoleeza Rice was than a pie in the face. It was far more powerful than pie-flinging. It took her down a notch without tossing anything at her.
Actually, I was talking about morality, as I lack the legal expertise to talk about law (and don’t we all think ourselves as experts on morality;) ?). And I may be bit naive, but I think what is moral and what is legal should bear close resemblance to each other, but moral principles shouldn’t be confused with personal likes and dislikes.
No, I don’t think that public figures have any less rights than non-public figures. Moral no from me.
Don’t get me wrong, I do sometimes fantasize about truly evil people getting “what they deserve”, so to speak (I’m not exactly proud to admit that). But the point is, the principle of everyone respecting rights of other human beings is far more important than that. And the pie-throwers are violating that principle, and this draws attention to the wrong place. Which should be injustice that these pied people have committed.
Yes, but how far should that scrutiny extend? To personal life? Family ties? Throwing a pie in the face? Clearly, the last one isn’t “scrutiny” it is a juvenile sort of minor assault for a quick laugh. (And also, CEO:s have a choice as it is a job that they could have refused, but not all people who are public figures have that choice.)
I guess I believe context matters – some so-called “rights violations” are really too petty for me to be convinced they matter. We all have free speech rights, but that doesn’t mean that an important violation has occured if I talk over you once at the dinner table.
There’s something wrong with how easily so many people (not necessarily the folks posting on this thread) accept what seem to me to be major violations of rights by the powerful, but when someone throws a pie at a powerful person that’s cause for a big fuss.
“Scrutiny” was a poor world choice on my part, given the context.
And regarding public figures who had no choice but to become public figures, I agree that makes a difference. In general, I think pies should be thrown only at powerful public figures. I’m unaware of any such person who didn’t get that way at least partly by choice.
Amp, I’m very disappointed. You claim that pie-throwing has a time-honored history of upending the power relationships between the elite and the commoners. I beg to differ. Pie-ing, or otherwise humiliating people by pouring or throwing foodstuffs on them has a greater time-honored tradition as a way for privileged people to keep the non-privileged in their place. Way back in the day, wealthy diners would dump food on the waitstaff as a way of showing displeasure, or to blow off steam. Kicking wash buckets over while the maid was scrubbing was done, too.
In modern times, pie-ing or foodstuff-dumping has its most common expression as a fraternity (or wannabe fraternity) prank, used to put women in their place. ‘Round about the time I was attending community college, the U of I was having incidents like this reported by women walking in Campustown; they would have mustard (or ketchup, or other messy foodstuff) thrown or squirted at them by a carful of laughing males. Some were pretty women, who weren’t interested in the attention of these males. Some were women who were deemed to fat or too ugly to be seen in public by these males. These incidents served as a reminder to women to keep to their place. Fighting the power? Uh-uh, Brother Amp.
Any attempt to frame pie-ing as only or even mostly a protest by the poor against the rich is wrongheaded. Poor people certainly did not conceive of wasting food as a means of protest. There is a tradition of pie-ing in vaudeville and before that, puppet theatre, but not out in the street. Out in the street, out in the lives of real people, pie-ing was done from the rich, to the poor. It is only in the folk culture of poor people, through stories, puppet theatre, and later on, vaudeville, that the revenge fantasy of the poor engaging in pie-ing came to light. Any attempt to ignore the fact that this is a tactic that is overwhelmingly applied against women is whitewashing.
And PETA, furthermore, is being intellectually dishonest by continuing to engage in this tactic, despite years of pointed criticism about its selective application to women. Not once has PETA ever taken this tactic to the fur, leather coats, or leather shoes of men. Not once. Why not? Do the animals killed for their pelts feel less pain when their pelts are worn by men? Do cows feel less pain when their coats and shoes worn by men? No? Well then, what are they waiting for?
Bah. This isn’t about ideology. It’s about the time-honored tradition of keeping women in their place. Buying new contacts and new clothes is not fun, nor is it cheap. I work hard for my money. It is time-consuming to go out and earn money. If some privileged, trustafarian PETA moron were to disrespect my person by dumping crap on my leather coat, rather than try to convince me to change my ways by using nonviolent tactics, I would clean their mother fucking clock. For real.
Lubu, I respect you a lot, and I love most of your posts. But I think you and Mythago – the other person who told me how disappointed she was in me – really lose credibility with me when you make remarks like that. Why is it that you choose to personalize your disagreement with me like this? Don’t you see how condescending remarks like that are?
As for the “time-honored tradition,” I never claimed any such thing (I did say it went back 35 years, but only to refute a slippery slope claim); please don’t attribute things I never said to me.
As far as I can tell, your argument is “there’s a history of X being used by bad people to humiliate the powerless, therefore X always and in all circumstances is bad, regardless of the changed context.” I don’t think that’s very logical – it’s better to take account of how changing context changes X. Blockades are bad when it’s police keeping workers from striking, for instance, but a line of workers blocking management from entering a workplace during a blockade is great, in my opinion. It’s not the thing itself, but the thing and how it works in a specific context, that matters.
The weird thing is, there is virtually NO tactic that has not been used by the powerful against the less powerful or powerless at some time in history. So if we took your standard – which boils down to this tactic has been used by bad people for bad purposes, therefore it is always bad to use it, regardless of context – seriously, there would be absolutely no tactics left that it would be acceptable to use in any circumstances.
Finally, as I said in my initial post, I don’t like PETA or support what they do; and I agree with you that PETA has a major misogyny problem.
Re #39:
I see your point. And for one last thought on the public figures: I think all public figures have a degree of power via influence, but the ones with real power have that usually by choice (monarchies with king or queen having actual decision-making power would be the exception), but like I (and others) have said, I think pieing is (albeit minor) wrong and ineffective.
If my wife or I was hit in the face with something, I would presume it to be an assault and to be meant to be harmful. I would retaliate with what abilities I have to return the assault. How would I have any idea if the substance in whatever it was was harmful or not? As pointed out above, how would the attacker know whether or not she or I might have an allergy or a medication or some other medical problem that might greatly complicate our reaction to this? How would I know whether or not the assault was meant to be a political statement or an attempt to get her purse or my wallet? How would I know that it wasn’t laced with sulfuric acid because the attacker thinks Westerners should cover their women’s faces? Mr. or Ms. PETA would likely end up being hit in the face by the street. And good luck on finding a jury that would convict me of anything.
Being powerful in and of itself is no excuse for being assaulted by a self-appointed protector of the powerless. Considering someone wearing a fur coat as doing something that justfies such action while considering someone getting an abortion as not doing something that justifies such action is a thought process that has little to do with logic as I understand it.
Hitting someone in the face with a pie is assault. The victim has a right to self-defense. And regardless of the vigor and success of that self-defense, the assaulter should be arrested, charged, and tried under the appropriate charges. The fact that the victim might be guilty of abuses, crimes, etc. is immaterial.
Holy $h!t, Batman – LaLubu and I are on the same side of a debate? Next thing you know, the Red Sox will win the World Series!
A pie in the face is not OK. There is the potential to block someone’s airway — the nose and mouth are both there, right together, right where the pie would go. Yes, it’s a small chance, but it’s not nonexistent — remember, time to brain damage is measured in minutes, and not very many minutes at that. And even if the airway is not occluded, there’s always the chance of aspiration and pneumonia.
The other thing is, two wrongs don’t make a right. You haven’t really addressed any problems by throwing a pie. You’ve only let off some steam. So the powerful person knows you’re angry? Big deal — a sophomoric stunt like that only allows them to write your protest off as goofy, and then proceed to ignore anything you want to say. And the people you’d like to have on your side will also write you off, because now the important person is the injured party.
There’s something wrong with how easily so many people (not necessarily the folks posting on this thread) accept what seem to me to be major violations of rights by the powerful, but when someone throws a pie at a powerful person that’s cause for a big fuss.
Fair enough, but that’s a different argument from what you originally said, which is that you enjoy pie-ing and think it’s actually a good thing. I’m sure that pie-attacks get disproportionate coverage and outrage. Of course, you wouldn’t hear about them and get to enjoy watching someone you didn’t like be humiliated if they didn’t receive disproportionate coverage. Your pleasure depends on the big fuss.
Why is it that you choose to personalize your disagreement with me like this?
Because in this example you have given, it is personal to me. PETA targets women and only women. I am a woman. Capisce? You are framing this as something only the wealthy and powerful have to worry about, so what’s the big deal? I’m seeing this as something that I have to worry about because of my gender. PETA may feel very strongly about fur and leather, but this doesn’t mean they have the right to strike people, even if it is only with a pie. Even a vegetarian judge isn’t going to view that as self defense when they end up going to court over it.
As far as I can tell, your argument is “there’s a history of X being used by bad people to humiliate the powerless, therefore X always and in all circumstances is bad, regardless of the changed context.” I don’t think that’s very logical – it’s better to take account of how changing context changes X. Blockades are bad when it’s police keeping workers from striking, for instance, but a line of workers blocking management from entering a workplace during a blockade is great, in my opinion. It’s not the thing itself, but the thing and how it works in a specific context, that matters.
Point taken. But the negative history has has not in the least been diminished; if anything it has increased. The tactic here has not been “turned around” in the least—it’s being used by an obnoxious group of protestors against women that they know damn well aren’t likely to physically defend themselves. It’s not being used to overturn the status quo, but to maintain it. This is the master building his house, not dismantling it—regardless of whose tools they are. Without getting into a long, abstract philosophical conversation about ends and means, can we agree that if your means completely contradict your ends (you shouldn’t wear fur because it is violent; if you do I will assault you), ya might have a problem?
Holy $h!t, Batman – LaLubu and I are on the same side of a debate? Next thing you know, the Red Sox will win the World Series!
Tell me about it! ;-)
You know what ? I scarcely have any idea what to say. I can’t stand PETA… and I can’t stand the fashion industry. I have a hard time giving a damn that some fashion bigwig was pelted with a pie. As far as aesthetics and woman-hating go, the fashion industry and PETA are pretty much on the same page. If the fashion bigwig’s fans had pelted one of Ingrid Newkirk’s sycophants with a pie instead of vice versa, I wouldn’t have cared either.
It reminds me of when the NFL tried to sue some Las Vegas moguls over the latter throwing “Super Bowl Parties” at the casinos, because “Super Bowl” was a copyrighted term and the moguls hadn’t paid for it, doncha’ know. It reminds me of when Donald Wildmon and Steven Bocchco were sparring in the media over whether butt-shots on TV were The Downfall of All That’s Holy or Great Drama As Never Before.
Honestly, if a person thinks everyone involved in the conflict is a shithead representing shithead values, there’s just not that much for her to get riled up about.
I more or less agree with Law-abiding Girl and Sheelzebub, though I’m not ashamed to admit that I find these incidents enormously funny. I know, that’s not the point, but there is something about someone’s mug plastered by cream and puff pastry that gets me chuckling every time.
While I agree with amp that a pie in the face to bill gates or anna wintour isn’t something I’m going to lose sleep on compared to the damage done by big corporations and fashion houses taking advantage of lax labour laws, I don’t think that makes it morally ok, and I don’t think being a powerful public figure takes away your right to not be physically assaulted- even if just by a pie. that doesn’t mean it can’t be justified- if you take away a company’s right to conduct business by blockading their supplies or whatever, that’s morally wrong in the sense that you’re taking the decision of whether their business is ok upon your own shoulders, rather than letting society decide- but if they’re really screwing up the environment or exploiting workers, than that action may be necessary to bring attention to their dodgy practices.
I’d consider that overall it was justified, but I wouldn’t shy away from the fact that part of my actions had been morally wrong.
and as such, I’d be happy to go to court and get a conviction against my name, and face the legal consequences of my actions.
my point is- pie throwing is definately morally wrong in the sense that it is designed to humiliate (and I don’t like seeing people humiliated, even powerful, famous people), and physically assault someone (even if in the vast majority of cases the harm is minimal).
If it could be demonstrated that it helped change people’s minds about issues, or had any positive effect (such as providing pleasure to people like amp) and that outweighed the negative aspects- the humiliation, damage to clothes etc, disdain for the particular cause by people who see the protest as stupid- then I’d see pie throwing as justified.
But I don’t think that’s the case- I think, it turns far more people off peta than it turns on, it has the potential to damage clothes (not so important for rich people) but also to cause physical harm- e.g. the limbaugh example, and even if we think someone deserves it, I don’t think humiliating people is nice.
so while amp might not mind seeing it happen, especially to people he doesn’t like, I see it as actually being counter-productive- especially in the turning people off your cause aspect- I think to the majority of people, the pier looks just as stupid as the pied.
so rather than not minding if it happened, I’d like to see it stop. But, in terms of problems, there are much bigger problems out there.
one analogy that came to mind was michael moore- I dislike moore for the same reasons I dislike ann coulter- he’s biased, and doesn’t present the whole picture- because I agree with him ideologically, I can laugh at his jokes, and I don’t mind too much that he’s using dodgy tactics to promote good ideas. because I disagree violently with coulter, she maked me furious.
so if I wanted to change a conservatives opinion about an issue, I’m not going to show them michael moore, just as showing a liberal an ann coulter speech isn’t likely to inspire any conversions.
so while I might laugh at pie throwers, just as I laugh at moore, overall, I think they do more harm than good- I get to laugh, but the animosity they generate in the people I’m trying to convert, and the media space they take away from better arguments (although it’s not a straight swap- pie throwing generates more coverage than just saying this policy sucks, but I do think there is some trade-off), as well as the physical and mental harm to those pied, for those reasons, I think pie throwing is unjustifiable, and I’d like to see it cease.
but again, it’s not something I’ll lose sleep over. (although having said that, I think it’s important that we uphold rights, even in those cases where we don’t really care much which way they go- e.g. I support the right to free speech, so even though personally I wouldn’t like to see those singing nazi twins who’ve been in the news recently get heard, I wouldn’t support gagging them. and even though I’m not losing sleep about saddam facing execution in iraq, I don’t support it because I think the death penalty is wrong.
p.s. all this talk about pies is reminding me of fafblog, where there is a regular pie-blogging section. he has some great stuff, my favourite is “So you’re being tortured to death in an american military prison”- http://www.fafblog.blogspot.com/2005/06/so-youre-being-tortured-to-death-in.html
I just wanted to say I agree with alsis39 when it comes to PETA and the fashion industry. Animal rights activists are often their own brand of crazy (and I know some lovely animal rights activists).
The difficulty with the speaking-pie-to-power moral model presented by Reddecca and endorsed by Ampersand is that it ends up undermining the rule of law, and leads in a direct line to arbitrary judicial power which ends up – as all government power ends up – working against the “little guy” and in favor of vested interests.
Amp, at least, is careful to distinguish between the legality of the action (it is at the very least battery to smack someone with a pie, whether they are a homeless person or Donald Trump) and the morality of the action (it is morally acceptable to smack Trump with a pie because of the capitalism and stuff, not acceptable to smack the homeless guy).
However, this dichotomy cannot survive for long in the flesh and blood world of human judges, human juries, and presumptively human lawyers and legislators. Where our laws do not conform to our morality, one or the other tends to change to come, if not into complete unanimity of pitch and tone, at least harmony. In a world where smacking Trump with a pie is morally OK, it will soon become legally OK – whether de jure, because the legislature bows to the desires of the people to see The Donald with a faceful of meringue, or de facto, because the juries think it’s all right and damn the law, anyway.
This creates a precedent that unscrupulous users of power will waste no time in exploiting. Rather than pie-throwing becoming a populist tool of reclaiming dignity from the oppressors, it will be wealthy and powerful individuals who instigate the pie-throwing – through proxies, probably, much as Ted Turner trains activists in camera-friendly tactics in order to serve his own interests. Does anybody really think that – say – George Bush would have been above having John Kerry pied on the way into a debate?
It is critical to remember – but it is very rarely actually remembered – that there is a reason people who control the levers of power possess that control – and that reason is usually that they are very, very good at manipulating levers and using people. If they weren’t, some other vicious son of a bitch would have replaced them by now.
A moral structure which permits an undermining of any civil right – in this case, the right to be free from physical assault and indignity at the hands of one’s fellow citizens – will always and everywhere become another tool of the powerful to use against their rivals. Furthermore, every society – capitalist or communist, feminist or patriarchy, National League or American League – has powerful people. There is no social reform which will change that feature of human society. There is always someone standing by to use and abuse any power or authority given unto them.
It is far, far better to endorse – as many commenters here have endorsed, to their credit – the notion that we all have formal equality of civil rights. You can’t hit Donald Trump with a pie; you can’t hit the homeless guy with a pie. It is undoubtedly true that the Donald derives more benefit from this civil right than does the homeless guy, just as he similarly derives more benefit from having his property not be subject to confiscation, more benefit from the right to free speech, and so on. There is real injustice encapsulated in the formal equality of the two citizen’s bundle of rights, but the injustice which would be unleashed, were those bundles to be unpacked and reassigned depending on this or that theory of power, this or that revolutionary ethos, is a million times greater, a million times more dangerous.
Pie throwing is a trivial exemplar of a very profound and fundamental principle. Formal equality of rights has stood the test of time – it does lead to the institutionalization of some forms of unfairness, but it also prevents the horrific abuses that have flowed inevitably wherever and whenever the principle of formal equality is breached.
Second of all, I think there’s an obvious difference between a sexual assault (however minor, like grabbing my butt) and a non-sexual assualt
So “no harm” is not really the dividing line after all.
I think that legitimate pie-throwing must both be directed at powerful public figures, and be about inversing oppressive power relationships.
Then you admit that whether an illegal attack is morally wrong depends on the nature of the victim. This does, indeed, sound creepily like the justifications many protests we find unjustifiable–say, anti-choicers putting the names of clinic patients on signs. They deserve it, do they not? The only difference between them and you is that you have drawn an artifical criterion (“rich and powerful only”) that allows you to feel morally comfortable.
Just because X is wrong when said in circumstance A, does not logically show X is wrong said in circumstance Y.
The logic behind the batterer’s “no harm, no foul” argument is that an attack is defensible if the victim was not harmed; it brushes aside any discussion of whether the attack itself was wrong. You’re offering the same reasons for pie-ing.
If the issue were “attack the rich and powerful,” then why not rubber hoses across the gut? Or grabbing asses? There’s no harm there, and really, if affronting dignity and protest is the issue, why not encourage a no-harm sexual assault? Wouldn’t ass-grabbing be a more appropriate form of protest in some circumstances–say, as a protest against the rich person’s perceived sexism?
There’s something wrong with how easily so many people (not necessarily the folks posting on this thread) accept what seem to me to be major violations of rights by the powerful
Robert, help me out with the name of the Latin fallacies here. Nobody has claimed that it’s OK for the rich and powerful to fuck over the little guy. Pretending that those who disagree with you hold this position is, well, let’s use the vernacular: dishonest.
Why is it that you choose to personalize your disagreement with me like this?
Because it’s enormously frustrating to see somebody you respect cling to an indefensible argument because they are in love with the results. And as La Lubu says a little more nicely, because it’s very upsetting to see somebody you thought of as an ally turn out to be a hell of a lot more attached to his own male privilege than he would like to admit.
Mmm, it’s a bit of a grey area. Closest of the classical ones is the argument from ignorance; circumstantially you might think Jane thinks its OK that the powerful abuse their power even those there is no proof thereof; ad ignorantium.
Or you could class it as affirming the consequent (non sequitur); Jane believes it is wrong to harm the powerful; therefore Jane must believe that it is not wrong for the powerful to harm others.
Which one it is kinda depends on which flavor of the stupidsicle the person in question is currently enjoying.
God, I love the Aristotelian fallacies. Aristotle kicks ass.
It’s a terrible thing, getting old. First your knees go, and then your Latin.
Did someone put something in my coffee? ‘Cuz…..I can’t believe I’m finding myself agreeing with Robert….(holds head, trying to shake the morning blahs out of it)……
Norman Cousins thought that it was a better public statement to wash the American flag than to burn it. Maybe we need alternative suggestions for the ritual use of pie in public as well.
Pies are to be eaten….
(and damn all of you for making me think of that delicious apple pie w/ whipped cream that’s still waiting at the sandwhich place down stairs…damn you all!)
I’ve had tomatos thrown at me, and if they’re over-ripe, it’s mostly the slime thing. And a pie probably would hurt less. I’m sure the tomato hurlers(pro-war activists) probably though their reasons were as principled as those who throw pies at bigwigs and politicians. What’s the right time and place and set of circumstances to throw a pie, is relative after all, depending on who you talk to.
(On a different note, oddly enough, we have a guy who threatened to throw a pie at a city council member, and is facing a misdemeanor charge filed by the city attorney for disrupting a public meeting….This, I think is a bit different than the actual act…he didn’t even have a pie in hand)
As for pie throwing as a form of protest, even I guess a form of civil disobedience of sort though as a purist I have difficulty calling it that, it’s also a crime. You do the crime(even as a form of protest) you do the time willingly and without complaint. If you consider bail, fines, court time where the wait can be hours, jail time, etc. you can ask yourself if it’s worth it.