January 21, 2002

12:12 PM

What if someone went looking for your nuggets?Karen Davis of United Poultry Concerns is back in the news, this time accusing the fast-food chain Carl's Jr. of "...portray(ing) chickens in a degrading and demeaning manner" in its latest commercial, which features "a group of men in suits standing around as one turns a live chicken every which way in a futile search for nuggets."
posted by mr_crash_davis (30 comments total)

Not having read the previous post, the LA Times article made me think that the United Poultry Concern was a meat industry group, not a pro-vegetarian group. That is, until I went and found their site and then checked out their oh-so-intellegent statements re:9/11. As a vegetarian myself, I find these type of groups to be embarassing and counterproductive. Asides from the Farm Sanctuary, I can't find any links to more moderate pro-veggie groups - anyone have any to share?

Of course, I can't wait to see what fold and mutilate has to say...
posted by skwm at 12:26 PM on January 21, 2002

A small request: can we try to keep the vegan nutjob and vegetarian bashing out of this thread? I thought the previous thread had enough to go around.
posted by mathowie at 12:38 PM on January 21, 2002

How does one "demean" a chicken? I can see how you might degrade one, but demean? Wouldn't a chicken need to have honor before you could demean it?
posted by aramaic at 12:41 PM on January 21, 2002

I see it as the chickens are going to be killed one way or the other for nuggets or strips. I guess she's saying the commercial scoffs at the sanctity of poultry life by using it, the intended victim, as part of a comedic ad campaign.

Of course, if they had the chicken wearing one of those hospital gowns that don't do up in the back, it would have been funnier. Creepier and more degrading, but funnier.

But you can't tell anyone anything. I've learned that.
posted by Kafkaesque at 12:42 PM on January 21, 2002

The answer to your question, mr_crash_davis, is, "They wouldn't have any trouble finding them."
posted by David Dark at 12:49 PM on January 21, 2002

Say, in Lebanon, men are legally allowed to have sex with animals, but the animals must be female. Having sexual relations with a male animal is punishable by death.

Go ahead and reflect on that.
posted by dong_resin at 12:55 PM on January 21, 2002

So you're saying that's why they were looking for the nuggets, d_r?
posted by Kafkaesque at 12:59 PM on January 21, 2002

If that's what you take from it, then yes.
Think of it as a koan.
posted by dong_resin at 1:09 PM on January 21, 2002

Funny that the group is Virginia-based -- when I was a kid in Virginia, Valleydale Foods used to run these commercials that showed cartoon pigs in a marching band parade singing how great Valleydale Foods were -- "Hooray for Vall-ey-dale, all hail it's Valleydale. Valleydale sausage, Valleydale weiners, Valleydale bacon, zing zing zing zing Valleydale!" That always seemed very very weird to me, pigs parading for food made out of . . . . them. Oh look, here they are (scroll down to the Valleydale logo).
posted by JanetLand at 1:11 PM on January 21, 2002

hetero chicken
fondling not encouraged
but overlooked

In the soft darkness
Old beaked ones slumbering
Tathagata snores
posted by Kafkaesque at 1:15 PM on January 21, 2002

thou chickenfucker!
Luckily, that chicken hath
teat, not testicle.

If twas the reverse?
Punishment would be meted
severely, farmboy.
posted by UncleFes at 1:30 PM on January 21, 2002

I think you can legitimately argue that chickens feel pain and that should be avoided. But having raised chickens I would be hard pressed to serious consider the idea that a chicken can feel humiliation.
posted by obfusciatrist at 1:31 PM on January 21, 2002

Missing UncleFes?
Just mention livestock and sex
and he comes running!
posted by Kafkaesque at 1:34 PM on January 21, 2002

Mine is but a pale
shade of Kafkaesque's love for
haiku, chickens, sex

Missing? Been busy:
Corporate Thugee say: "Fes!
Thy service we need!"

But though I resist
the coming left-right flame war,
fowl sex draws me back.
posted by UncleFes at 1:45 PM on January 21, 2002

all chickens have breasts,
therefore fair game and legal;
just don't use a cock.
posted by David Dark at 1:48 PM on January 21, 2002

You are a Dark horse,
crowing haiku suddenly
in a blue vacuum.

MetaFilter say:
come for high-brow debating
stay for chicken sex
posted by Kafkaesque at 1:51 PM on January 21, 2002

i dunno what karen davis is upset about. it's not like they shaved the chicken's beard.

seriously tho ...

In essence, Davis says we wouldn't subject a dog or cat to that, so why do it to a chicken?

... it's a valid position. lots of folks would find an ad which featured men performing surgery on a horse to find the source of the Jell-o or the Elmer's glue to be distasteful.

davis takes that view to the next logical step. she finds it the commercial distasteful and takes action on her distaste. why is that so spectacular?

(i expect even she finds this particular protest a bit silly, but hey if it gets a million-and-one geeks visit United Poultry Concern's site ... it's a damn good move.)
posted by danOstuporStar at 1:53 PM on January 21, 2002

it is kind of morbid, if you think about it.
posted by mcsweetie at 1:57 PM on January 21, 2002

I didn't see anything in that commercial that I'd feel bad about seeing happen to a dog or cat, it was just a mock examination similar (but less extensive) to what happens at dog shows. And as for the implications of the rubber glove, they were just that, implications, and I don't think the chicken got the joke.
posted by Nothing at 2:24 PM on January 21, 2002

Dark-ness decends on
insular haiku hoodlums!
Do sign in, stranger.
posted by UncleFes at 2:41 PM on January 21, 2002

This reminds me of a show I saw on public access television awile back. It consisted several twentysomethings with British accents trying to convince the viewer that fishing is wrong and immoral because, basically, fish have feelings too, and they can also feel pain, so you should think of the fishes and not try to catch them.

I can't say that it was very effective. I come from an area where a fairly large portion of the population fishes (not commercially), and I don't particularly care about what the fish is feeling when I'm planning to kill and eat it.

posted by JCB at 3:56 PM on January 21, 2002

In essence, Davis says we wouldn't subject a dog or cat to that, so why do it to a chicken? Has anyone seen any Korean Dogmeat commercials lately?

Gently search
for meaty nuggets
on a pitbull with teeth
posted by Mack Twain at 4:15 PM on January 21, 2002

I am deeply shocked, moderately confused, and slightly aroused. The usual, in other words.

Hold me closer, tiny dancer.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:42 PM on January 21, 2002

Oooh, I totally forgot about our chicken-in-residence.

stavros, have you been accosted by men in suits wearing rubber gloves lately?
posted by mr_crash_davis at 7:14 PM on January 21, 2002

We kill and eat millions of chickens every year, but making fun of them is bad? I guess this is a holdover from the "don't play with your food" lesson we learned as children.
posted by phalkin at 7:37 PM on January 21, 2002

now that this has become the poulty haiku festival, I just figured I had to add my two cents:

poultry sizzles in deep fat
Foghorn suffers for my meal
pass the sweet and sour
posted by jonmc at 8:06 PM on January 21, 2002

stavros, have you been accosted by men in suits wearing rubber gloves lately?

Well, not accosted, per se.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:51 AM on January 22, 2002

I don't think you can call it accosted when he carries the gloves around with him and offers to buy you a drink first.
posted by Kafkaesque at 9:00 AM on January 22, 2002

It's a fine line between "accosted" and "aroused" ain't it?
posted by UncleFes at 9:43 AM on January 22, 2002

well, I guess mathowie got his wish with this thread.
posted by thewittyname at 12:54 PM on January 22, 2002