Yes I was clear in my email that I understood the basis for the ad but objected to the execution and gave reasons why. I don’t know if this is a standard reply that they are sending to all objectors, but ignoring the reasons for my concern and restating a link I had already acknowledged as valid just reinforces the impression that they gave no thought to the perspective of women when they approved this video.

Thanks for your comment, Y. It would be interesting to know how many women donate to the RSPCA cf men, wouldn’t it? Who exactly did they think their target market was? Commenter Witchywoo on Lauredhel’s original post said their public relations department need some gender relations training – spot on I think.

Yep I was hoping that this was all some sort of mistake but those last paragraphs really felt like a “you think that was bad well cop this, b*tch!”.

Yes you are spot on.

As I am always wearily pointing out to people, animal abuse is a marker for future crimes against other humans. Although that is generally an argument needed for people who dismiss animal abuse as trivial, which doesn’t entirely apply to the RSPCA, the RSPCA isn’t taking this fact into account in the ad. In fact, for the kind of person who is poised to torture or kill animals and who would be likely to go on to injure or kill people, this ad would be more likely to give them ideas than anything else.

That letter sickens me. You wrote to them about how triggering the graphic violence in the PSA is to victims of violence, so they wrote you back… and the letter included more graphic, triggering first-person descriptions of violence from a murderder’s mouth?

Assholes. OK, I had sorta hoped that they had just misjudged and would redeem themselves after the complaints, but no. They clearly don’t give a shit.