Response to "In Defense of Lady Gaga"

Becca wrote a post defending Lady Gaga's "meat dress" because in some sense, it was subversive and challenging to our social norms. She argued that one interpretation of the dress is that it brought attention to the objectification of both women and animals. In a way, I see Becca's point, because this dress probably caused a lot of people to think about the way we treat both animals and women, but just because something generates good discussion doesn't mean it is good in itself. The fact is, Lady Gaga objectified both herself and animals. If that starts a discussion about the objectification of animals and/or women-while those discussions are important to have-it doesn't justify the dress itself. I always wonder why people think things like this are subversive; she is not truly challenging our society for objectifying women, she herself is participating in the objectification of women and animals. Just because she brought attention to this issue doesn't mean it was an appropriate way to protest it.

It is very common for people to use shock value in order to get a message across. I have already blogged about PETA's horrible tactics for raising awareness to their issues. People go to shock value because it is easy. Doing something shocking will catch people's attention; educating people on the issue you are interested in is a lot harder. Keane posted this quote recently: "noble things are difficult." I think this is usually true. It is hard to promote change for important issues, but you have do it the right way in order for it to have any merit.

Question 1: Are there any redeeming qualities about using a "shock value" tactic?

Question 2: Is Lady Gaga's meat dress any worse than wearing leather or fur?