Why does Peta insist on degrading women to elevate animals?

[BurtWorm]

Does anyone get that? :wtf: is wrong with Peta?!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/17/greece.animalwelfare?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront

[phantom power]

1. I don't think it's anything more complicated than "sex sells."

[BurtWorm]

4. Why doesn't the Sierra Club, NARAL or the NAACP use sex to sell their messages?

Maybe because what they're selling is too serious to be sold the old-fashioned Madison Avenue way?

[iamjoy]

17. PETA Takes An Over The Top Approach

in some ways, they remind me of Code Pink. Both organizations use outrageous stunts to call attention to a cause in which they passionately believe. They are deliberately provocative because that generates publicity.

But I don't think these women are being degraded, they are choosing to do what they do. No one is forcing them. Unlike the sex industry, I would think most of them are not doing this for money.

Think of them as modern day Lady Godivas

:silly:

[hyphenate]

111. I agree

>>>>>But I don't think these women are being degraded, they are choosing to do what they do. No one is forcing them. Unlike the sex industry, I would think most of them are not doing this for money.<<<<<

The volunteers who work for the advancement of PETA's goals can never be considered subdued, shy or even modest--it's next to impossible to confront people about the continued abuse of animals and be in any way very polite about it. For many years, taking that quieter approach got very little done for the animals (I always thought, as a child, that the Anti-Vivesection Society was a bunch of ancient folks who were repressed and uptight. But then I grew up and saw what was happening and was appalled.), but then PETA took over from older, more staid organizations, and suddenly a lot more people were aware of the horrors going on with animal testing and areas where animals were found. While some people question their methods, there are few who will deny they're making people far, far more aware than any other organization in existence today. Hell, some become aware through ads and commercial endeavors that PETA sponsors, and then end up joining or donating to more traditional groups, such as HSUS, AHA, or the SPCA. Regardless, as long as we, as a people, see the light about how animals are being treated in general, my philosophy is, "whatever works."

Hell, I remember an early episode of Seinfeld where Elaine was at a party with Jerry and accosted a woman wearing a fur coat--she was my hero for a very long time because of that scene!

[phantom power]

25. I would say it is a cost/benefit thing...

PETA's goals are inherently controversial, and so they lose nothing by engaging in the controversial use of nubile young females*. Organisations like Sierra Club, NARAL, NAACP, etc, are more mainstream, and so they likely stand to lose more than they gain by engaging in blatantly sex-based advertising.


*I've noticed they also make use of nubile young males.

[BurtWorm]

26. Is Peta serious about its goals?

I've never seen much evidence for that.

[phantom power]

36. I assume they mean what they say, but you'd have to ask them.

[BurtWorm]

38. From the message, it's clear to me they don't.

[RobofSWVA]

11. agreed that sex sells

in uptight western society, sex generates interest. The models and PETA can exploit this idea to get their message across. As a young man in my 20s, yes, beautiful naked women do in fact attract my attention. Craziness I know.

[BurtWorm]

19. Are you going to send PETA money to get Britain to outlaw fur helmets?

(Of all causes in the world to give money to!) :eyes:

Just because you're attracted to the women whose bodies they're exploiting to get media attention?

They muddy their message everytime they pull shit like this.

[phantom power]

21. As a middle aged man in your 40s...

beautiful naked women will continue to attract your attention.

FYI...

:evilgrin:

[Teaser]

2. Ask them if they're being degraded.

I don't know that they are until they tell me they are.

[Tallison]

85. My first thought exactly

There's a difference b/w degrading women in general and degrading oneself. I don't see PETA doing the former nor these ladies doing the latter. Sounds like the OP hasn't critically thought through the issue yet. :shrug:

[TahitiNut]

98. Don't you understand? It's not up to them.

We gotta look after our wimmen-folk 'cause they just don't know when they're degrading themselves.

:eyes: (Some 'liberals' just slay me.)

[Quantess]

134. You sound like a smart person. (no text)

[mikelgb]

3. unclothed female bodies are degrading to women?

why?

they are willing participants in free speech....

you degrade them by insisting they be degraded because of their nudity

[BurtWorm]

10. I wonder why only men are rushing to defend Peta.

Peta is getting to the point where it ONLY uses nude or semi-nude women (never men) to attract attention to its stunts.

[RaleighNCDUer]

45. I think you just have a bug up your butt about PETA.

It doesn't "ONLY" use nude or semi-nude women to "attract attention to its stunts".

You are confusing medium with the message.

The models (and they HAVE used barely clad male models in this campaign also) ARE the stunt, which attract attention to their CAUSE. This particular campaign is about the wearing of fur - the obvious hook is the UNwearing of fur. And that hook says "it is less shameful to wear nothing than to wear fur". A powerful message is a shame-based society.

They didn't use nude models in their expose film of the mistreatment of hogs in Iowa - there are at least two threads on that today.

PETA is a serious organization. A bit over the top at times, but effective in getting their message out. And this acknowledgment comes from an unabashed carnivore who appreciates the durability of leather goods and has a fur-trimmed parka packed away in my closet - in eager anticipation of one day moving north again.

[BurtWorm]

51. I do dislike Peta and have for a long time.

I'm not the only one. I won't give them a dime. There are other animal rights groups that don't sink to Madison Avenue gimmicks to sell themselves. Peta is all about Peta.

[Captiosus]

59. Effective getting their message out?

Is that sarcasm? Because if not, it should be.

PeTA's over the top tactics have devalued them to nothing more than a laughing stock of an organization. Other animal rights groups have distanced themselves from PeTA and the only time PeTA ever gets national exposure is when they do something over the top and get laughed at.

I used to pass by PeTA's HQ every day going to work and would always chuckle. They've made a mockery of their cause. The only thing they have that I don't mind supporting, and this is local to the Southeastern Virginia area, is their mobile low cost spay and neuter bus. Even the most liberal people I know trash PeTA.

They destroyed their effectiveness to get their message across with stupid stunts like the UnHappy Meals.
They destroyed their effectiveness when they try to get on their soapbox and challenge people to "tofu wrestling" matches against the Lettuce Ladies.

I can think of 5 local no kill shelters and no skill SPCAs within 30 minutes who I'd rather give my money to.

[Zhade]

88. Nah. I can't stand PETA and its flawed, cultish stances, yet I disagree with the OP.

NT!

[lildreamer316]

79. I agree with mike and I'm a woman.

Of course, I must qualify that by saying I am also an exotic entertainer. Not that it should matter, but it probably will.

[Tallison]

86. Thanks for looking out for my honor

but I don't think I want your type of 'protection.' :eyes:

[jobycom]

13. No. Using naked women as objects to attract attention is degrading.

And not just to women.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

30. No It's Not.

It all depends on intent or twisting of message. If an ad a picture representative of all women, and cast the group in its entirety as nothing but brainless beauties, then that would be degrading to women. Using attractive bodies to grab attention is not degrading whatsoever.

[jobycom]

34. Fascinating.

Checking... Nope, the URL seems correct...

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

39. Did You Think You Were At "IrrationalZealots.com" Or Something?

[jobycom]

44. Something.

You know, one of those places where someone opposed to misogyny or sexism would be labeled a zealot.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

46. Why Would You Be There? You Should Stay Away From Sites Like That. They're Filled With Ignoramuses

Stay here. There are a lot of intelligent and objective people here, myself included. You could learn a lot from us.

[jobycom]

55. I do stay here, but sometimes

this place gets a bit like I'd imagine those other sites to be. For instance, if someone here were to say that a commercial, say a PETA or a Coors Beer commercial, that used scantily clad women to attract attention to sell its product was not degrading to all women by its assumption that women can best transmit a message by using their looks rather than their reason or intellect, I'd say that some of those other sites filled with ignoramuses must have sent a few of those ignoramuses here. So I often check the URL, to be sure that I wasn't redirected--a form of ignoramus-roll'd, you know.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

67. But You Wouldn't Be Accurate In Your Assumption.

You'd be guilty of ignorant deduction thereby warping your conclusion.

The ad is not degrading to all women by any means, nor is it saying that their message is best transmitted by looks. It's just saying that messages CAN be transmitted by looks. Not a thing wrong with that.

[Tallison]

89. To this female feminist, your argument smacks disengenous

Exploitation involves two agents with a power differential. Under coercion, the vulnerable's goods are used for the powerful's expense. I don't see that dynamic at work here or in any of PETA's marketing campaigns.

[Zhade]

92. How can it possibly be misogynistic if the women involved give their informed consent?

Do you think women are too stupid to do that?

[Zhade]

91. Can't BELIEVE I'm going to say this, but... exactly.

NT!

[Zhade]

90. 1) In your opinion, not in fact. 2) Not if they willingly consent.

NT!

[justiceischeap]

5. Um... PETA isn't defrading those women if they willingly offer to do this stuff

They're degrading themselves. They CAN say no. And yes, it's that sex sells and gets media attention.

They did a marketing experiment once in Harvard Square where they protested fully clothed and got no press, the next day they got "naked" and had tons of press.
So it's the people getting naked and the press to blame for the degradation.

[mikelgb]

7. naked = bad!

bullshit

[BurtWorm]

14. Their message is no different from Budweiser's.

Join Peta and get babes. That's the level of brilliance we're talking about.

[mikelgb]

16. really?

ure that shallow?

[BurtWorm]

22. They are that shallow.

Yes they are.

[LanternWaste]

72. I believe that Budweiser is

I believe that Budweiser is the #1 selling beer in America

Maybe they'd sell more if they ran commercials similar to the erudite introductions on Masterpiece Theater. :shrug: That would be a whole new level of brilliance...

[Tallison]

93. What's wrong with the framework of that message?

Do the right thing, and yes, you may appear more attractive to the members of this group. It's basic social psychology, predicated on doing the right thing.

Now, if you disagree with these ladies' notion of what's right, that's a different issue. But I wonder if you're not confusing your dislike for their message and projecting it onto the obvious appeal of their unavailable bodies? :shrug:

(As an aside, years back on an eharmony site I wrote on my profile that "I don't sleep with Republicans." Was I sexualizing an issue? Yes. Is it my sex to do with as I please? Absolutely.)

[flvegan]

6. This has potential

:popcorn:

[Dr. Strange]

66. Yeah...

too bad the OP didn't include circumcision, though.

[flvegan]

68. I was hoping at least one of the girls would be smoking a cigarette.

[Dr. Strange]

80. I disagree: I find smoking to be degrading to women.

[Lance_Boyle]

81. Dammit, which one of those nekkid women is breaded with corn flakes?

[jobycom]

8. They don't degarade women only. They degrade all humans.

That's why I, as a vegetarian and animal lover extraordinaire, despise PETA with a passion usually reserved for warmongers and other Republicans. They try to convince people to respect animals by not respecting the people they are trying to convince. I can't even count the number of people I've heard give PETA as the number one reason why they won't become vegetarian, won't stop hunting, and sometimes even won't vote Democrat. I know hunters who say "This one's for PETA" every time the bring home a kill.

Despicable, dehumanizing, counter-productive egomaniacs. Their only real goal is to preach their own perceived superiority.

Oh yeah, almost forgot... :popcorn:

(Edited to correct brain-typo)

[mikelgb]

15. PETA is bad because sick fucks kill animals in their name?

"Despicable, dehumanizing, counter-productive egomaniacs." Indeed.

[jobycom]

They are bad because they are degrading. They are also counter-productive.

Sorry you missed that.

[pnutbutr]

18. you just said

it all. Agree 100%

[Webster Green]

9. They look fine to me..

Really fine! :smoke:

[agent46]

12. what's so degrading about free thought? n/t

[MadHound]

20. Excuse me, but since when did the semi-nude female body become degrading to women?

What, is this some sort of left wing fundy thing now, can't show the human body because it is degrading:wtf: Sorry, but you're way off base on this one.

[BurtWorm]

23. When it has a fake tattoo of a British flag on its ass?

:shrug:

[MadHound]

37. LOL,

Better than some other fake tattoos that I can think of.

[fed_up_mother]

24. They look like they enjoy the attention. I"m not so sure it's about "PETA." :)

[Quantess]

135. I bet they need sexual attention. PETA stands for Please Enjoy my Tits & Ass.

[mikelgb]

27. Why did Michelangelo degrade women with his "art"...?

What a Budweiser artist... using our base desires to sell us art?

"buy art and get babes"


And for the dense motherfuckers who agree with this post so far:
:sarcasm:

[BurtWorm]

33. Brilliant comparison.

:sarcasm:

[mikelgb]

40. Why didn't he cover their breasts?

[Blue_Tires]

28. you may as well ask why ANY advertising medium

uses good looking/sounding and/or scantily clad women for promotion....

and evidently it worked -- peta is trying to spread the message and here you are, posting it here on DU...:crazy: :think: :spank:

[mikelgb]

31. Exactly... the real question is why does "sex" advertising work?

because of lingering stranglehold of "christian" morals creating an ashamed and sex deprived populace...

[Tallison]

99. Sex sells because we're sexual creatures

Christians didn't invent it, and they're certainly not taking it away. Ever seen Japanese advertising? It's as licentious as anything here. I think your theory is a little thin.

[Quantess]

136. Sex is a factor in advertising in ALL cultures. Even the most extreme women-hating Muslim cultures

like sex. Gross, I know. But this is all part of "human sexuality", so we need to talk about it in order to get by in life.

[BurtWorm]

41. And how many DUers are reaching for their pocket books right now to send Peta some dough?

Shall we take a poll?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

29. I Fail To See The Problem.

It's an attention getting tactic. Those women are doing so out of choice, so they're not being degraded at all. At least it's better than their totally irrational and extremist ones.

[Tarc]

32. Prudes in the DU? Who knew?

[BurtWorm]

43. Strawman evasions on DU? Who knew?

;)

[Tarc]

58. No strawmen here, Mr. Prude

It was a simple assessment of your moral character, or lack thereof, and you're laughably ridiculous accusation that what PETA does is degrading to women.

It does not.

[BurtWorm]

63. I have no problem with naked bodies, lusting, fucking, spanking, tickling, licking, you name it

No problem with it. No problem with depicting it in art. I depict it in my own art.

I have no problem with using sex to sell within reason.

I have problems with an allegedly socially progressive organization using socially retrograde advertising techniques that irrelevantly exploit male desire for female bodies, not just once but over and over and over, to sell its product.

[Tarc]

64. That you feel it is "socially retrograde" is indicative of your prudishness

The 1950's called, they want you back.

[BurtWorm]

71. This advertising tactic is from the 1950s.

This is mixing an allegedly progressive message to raisse consciousness using a technique our consciousness was raised against in the 1970s.

Your name-calling may make you feel good, but it's not addressing the paradox here.

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BurtWorm]

108. Peace, sage.

:hi:

[justiceischeap]

78. When did PETA EVER claim to be socially progressive?

That's your first mistake right there. The only thing PETA has EVER cared about is helping animals. The people that work for PETA or those that volunteer hold the same philosophy. I'd bet you money that the women in that photo don't even WORK for PETA--they are volunteers.

As you sit comfortably at your computer, I have to ask, have you helped as many animals as they have? I had a life-changing experience working with PETA. I went to New Orleans after Katrina to help with animal rescue and I watched people from PETA get face to face with pitbulls that were obviously used for fighting and rescue them at the risk of their own lives. We spent 15 hour days rescuing animals, eating nothing but what junk food we could get from the local gas station in Gonzalez, LA, sleeping in vans that were covered with the filth from NOLA and not once did anyone complain. I saw animals that were left to die by people who had no regard for them. I saw animals that had to cannibalize one another for survival. And I had to deal with people with your attitude every day down there. I get sick and tired of hearing people bitch about PETA's marketing tactics without stopping to think about the real work and the horrors PETA employees have to see on a daily basis. Our nation is not kind to animals and it takes real guts to have to look at that inhumanity on a daily basis.

[faithfulcitizen]

84. wow.

:blush:

[Zhade]

95. NO SEX THREADS

:p

(But you're still wrong on this one.)

[Tallison]

100. "I have no problem with using sex to sell within reason"??????

Which bears out what I figured: That it's what the sex is selling that's got you going, not the sexualized framework per se.

If you don't like PETA, just say it; lots of people will understand that. I'm not so hot about the organization, myself. But the OP about PETA's 'degradation of women' is silly and disingenous.

[BurtWorm]

110. Bullshit.

You have no idea what's got me going.

I asked in the original post why they insist on degrading women, and I'm not the only one who's asking that question:

http://www.blogher.com/can-you-be-feminist-and-support-petas-marketing-strategies

http://feministing.com/archives/008699.html

http://www.thefword.org.uk/blog/2008/03/fuck_you_peta

http://www.stumbleupon.com/demo/?review=1#url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.womanist-musings.com%2F2008%2F09%2Fstriptease-for-peta.html

[fascisthunter]

152. I Agree

[hyphenate]

122. I do have a question for you, though

When you checked the article to which the photo was attached, did you not notice that the whole incident didn't even appear in the United States?

The incident happened in Athens, Greece, it was in respect to English use of Canadian bears in the making of hats for the Buckingham Palace (and other royal locations) guards, and that one of the three girls was Polish?

What passes for mores in the United States is irrelevant to the whole question, because everyone else in the world KNOWS that Americans are among the biggest prudes in the world!

We are seeing something happen elsewhere in the world, and we are trying to apply the standards that barely pass here in this country!

Every society has its own standards and its own rules on how those standards are maintained. I recall as a child looking at National Geographic magazine and seeing native women in many other countries with no bras, no covering at all on their breasts, and wondering how they got away with it--and I was a girl. At the age of 8 or so, it was difficult to even digest the differences between genders, and even more difficult to understand why we had so many taboos on looking at nude bodies. I have since found that the societies which are the most repressed are also the last ones to acknowledge that nudity is NOT a horrible thing.

In your eye, which might or might not be the same eye others see things with, women who take off their clothes (in this case, willingly) are to be looked at as degraded by society. To me, those women know exactly what they are doing, and are, in fact, daring you to consider that they are the ones in control, because men will always be like little boys, and can't understand that. I think you need to consider that women actually have the upper hand, because many more women understand perfectly where men are coming from and can manipulate those elements that men react to.

I don't know about other women at DU, but I can say that I don't find very much degrading about that picture, and I think that the women involved in the stunt were likely having a great time, and pointing out something really important to them while they were having an appreciable amount of fun.

[BurtWorm]

123. As I've said elsewhere, it's Peta's pattern that's degrading.

This is admittedly a very mild form of the standard Peta use of women's bodies to garner attention for itself. Very mild.

http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-search.fcgi?IncludeBlogs=2&search=peta

[hyphenate]

129. Oh come on!

A website which uses trucker mud-flap designs as part of their website logo is in any way a great model for women? Now I have to wonder what is really more degrading to women?




There is definitely a distinction between a woman being completely in charge of her own destiny and doing something for entertainment, and one who is being pimped on the streets in order to have a roof over her head, food or a steady supply of one's favorite substance to abuse.

PETA has had some hits and some misses in its publicity campaigns over the years, but any organization who often has to launch 10 ad campaigns or publicity stunts in order to succeed at one will have a mixed track record. And since PETA was long ago deemed over-the-top by some assholes who opposed their messages, it's quite possible that those people who are doing more of the denigration have managed to make their meme poisonous to ALL the good that PETA has managed to achieve. Frankly, not everyone is going to support EVERY project that PETA and other animal rights groups are working on, and that's okay. ANY victory for the animals is a GOOD victory, and I'm glad I can see a day when more people are outraged by dog fighting, cock fighting, or the plight of the wild mustangs. I can't help most of those pigs, cows or calves from being slaughtered, but I can have a happy moment to see that horses aren't shipped to China for horse stew, or that more people are wearing less fur, and that more people ingest meatless meals. I can be proud of the fact that thirty years ago, I would have been considered a nutcase for even CARING for any of those things, and that now I might not be considered mainstream quite yet, but that I get a sympathetic nod from others and less people call me "nuts" to my face.

Would you RATHER receive the pictures of animal testing labs, the cold hard truths about all those horrendous things, and the completely terrible evidences of the whole underside of both medical testing and cosmetic testing? Or would you rather see this kind of stunt? Personally, I have nightmares of the things going on, and I wish people would see the horrors that I have seen in photographs and films. But I'd trade a nightmare in ANY DAY for a picture and a stunt like this, if only to know that the bald-faced truth can be handled in a less agonizing manner.

[BurtWorm]

130. You can debate the feministing logo with Jessica Valenti.

Peta's misses are almost all of the woman-hating variety. There's something fucked up about that.

[Seldona]

167. "because men will always be like little boys"

:rofl:

[Lorien]

52. I hope that he never visits Nice

all those *gasp* women choosing to degrade themselves on the beach!

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

62. It's the great paradox of the old school feminist

"Women can do whatever they want, whenever they want, and in any manner they so choose........as long as it's what I would do."

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

35. People Eating Tasty Animals?

:shrug:

[Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel]

49. I like attractive food

A lot of the time ugly food taste bad.

[Sanctified]

42. I prefer Bare Skin on a Bear Skin rug , if you know what I mean. n/t

[Marrah_G]

47. I don't find this to be degrading to women at all.

[Lorien]

48. So, you've never been to a protest before?

protests often turn into street theater. People do what they feel will bring attention to their cause. Since Americans WRONGLY believe that the human body is a vile abomination whose only purpose is sexual, shedding one's clothes gets attention. Got yours, right? I don't thin that ANY woman "degrades" herself when she chooses to show parts of her body. Women's bodies are not disgusting, evil things to anyone but sick fundie radicals. Stop degrading women by suggesting that what is under our clothing is disgraceful.

[mikelgb]

76. very well put

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

50. Trying to work one end against the other, eh?

The sex prudes vs. the food prudes?

Best of luck.

[sun in sadge]

53. I am a woman, long-time vegetarian, and donor to PETA--what's so bad here?

Are these women being forced into displaying their bods? See, real feminism (at least in my world) is allowing women to do whatever the eff they want. If they WANT to strip, hook, parade with their cheeks hanging out of bikini bottoms, whatever's clever! I wouldn't do it, but if they are truly acting from a position of power, then it should be all good!

[RaleighNCDUer]

56. Well said,

and WELCOME to DU!

[sun in sadge]

61. Thank you muchly

(I was afraid my first response on this thread would be against what I have written, with the added shot that obviously I haven't a clue, since it's my first post!)

[RaleighNCDUer]

69. So, I take it you've been lurking for a while.

You seem to really know the place! LOL!

[Zhade]

96. STFU NOOB

I kid, I kid! Welcome to DU (from an unrepentant meat-eater to boot)!

[Tallison]

101. Welcome to DU!

:hi:

Your words are a warm addition to ours here (especially on this thread!)

[The Stranger]

54. Either you are out of your fucking mind . . .

. . . or you forgot the :sarcasm: indicator.

[underseasurveyor]

57. First they (PETA) get noticed

and second, I don't think women baring their breasts is sexists...
Women are beautiful and BOOBS ROCK :woohoo:

The very idea that women shouldn't bare their breasts is sexist.

[Uncle Joe]

60. I don't find the human body to be degrading, although poor photography can be.

This photo is too dark, I can barely make out the faces, hopefully next time, they will remedy that situation.

[BurtWorm]

75. Think they asked any 50-year-old men to hold the banner?

Or 50-year-old women? I don't think they love the "human form" that much, do you?

[Uncle Joe]

140. Yes there are plenty of 50 year old women whose bodies,

I find beautiful, once they crack 100 though you have to look deeper with a more spiritual eye to see the loveliness of age.

[BurtWorm]

143. I don't doubt that many more people find older people's bodies beautiful and sexy.

I am one of them. But advertising agencies don't. Neither, I imagine, does Peta.

[Uncle Joe]

151. I believe that may change, the corporate media have long made their living

marketing on the surface level, I believe we; that being the Internet will change their perceptions. Maybe reading this thread will inspire PETA to start using some more seasoned model protesters in the future. I believe that would add an even greater impact to their cause.

[cherokeeprogressive]

65. I'm just waiting for them to start protesting the beaver trappers. n/t

[MzNov]

70. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.

Thanks. I just sent them $25.

and, yeah, ask the people at Hormel who are now busted for horrific abuse and slaughter of little pigs and piglets.

THANK YOU PETA.

[prayin4rain]

73. you're getting a lot of flak.... but i know what you mean

yes, these women are doing it willingly but because they were subjected to a society that tricks women into giving up their real power and allows them to feel powerful by doing the very things that impede them from gaining any "true" power. i agree i think the way that women have been so willing to objectify themselves and make their existence and worth relative to men's ideas about what womanhood is, is sad. and even more sad is that people, men and women, don't even realize is that the soceity that little girls grow up in brainwashes them to the point that "choice" is not an option without strong parents.

[BurtWorm]

74. Thank you.

It's nothing against animal rights. It's the hypocrisy that's ridiculous, demanding respect for the dignity of our animal brethren and sistren while engaging in the same-old-shit exploitation of pretty young female *objects* that corporations use to sell product.

Does anyone think Peta would ever use any body but a young conventionally "sexy" one to sell its product? Yeah right! Beauty of the human form my ass!

So high-mindedly avant-gard when it comes to animals, yet so same-old same-old when it comes to women.

Amazing that so few on this board get that.

[time disk]

113. I think everybody gets it

There's something dirty about being a human being and demonstrating sexuality, openly, isn't there? Lots of people think so.


People should really be prevented from doing stupid and degrading things if they believe they are having fun. Because, of course, they really aren't. We all know that.

On a lighter note,


You seem to be wound up a little tight. Try this, do something fun today wearing only half your clothes. Try it, go ahead.

[BurtWorm]

115. Try to have two thoughts at once in your head.

Maybe you could set an example for the others here who think criticizing the advertising tactics of a consistently woman-hating organization like Peta is equivalent to being against sexuality.

http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-search.fcgi?IncludeBlogs=2&search=peta

PS: Welcome to DU, brother.

[time disk]

138. But see, now you've made the jump to woman-hating.

That seems to be an unproven claim, at least based on this thread.

It doesn't help to do that sort of name calling, especially over a demontration with swim suit clad women carrying signs.

I do think its more about you than about them.

Does that constitute two thoughts?

[BurtWorm]

150. Did you follow any of the links to stories about Peta's 30-year history of

antagonizing feminists? Is there some reason why Peta thinks feminism and animal liberation are incompatible--so incompatible that they continue making stunts that completely ignore the 30-year-old feminist critique of them?

[time disk]

164. No, I've not studied PETA's history of stunts, but....

I also don't know which feminists (small 'f' as opposed to Feminists - is there a difference?) are doing the complaining.

Your choice of words seems to say that if "feminists" criticize, there is cause for concern. But I'm not sure 'feminists' stature in our society warrants such automatic acceptance.

You see, I respond to individual issues, raised by individuals.

In this case I see women who seem to support PETA and don't seem to upset about participating in their stunt. And I hear you criticizing PETA for objectifying women in this way and telling us they've been doing it for ages. Who is right?

Again, I'm not 'knee jerk' assuming you are wrong, but I just have never seen newpaper articles, talk shows, etc. that make people aware of the issues you raise with PETA.

You have every right to raise them, I have every right to withold agreement until the issue gains a little more traction, and in so doing, moves up the 'give a shit' scale we all use to prioritize our outrage.

Also, who runs PETA? I don't know. Is it mostly women or men? That would make a difference to me as I would think if its main stream women they would be more in touch with contemporary mores on this issue than I am.

[Name removed]

83. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tallison]

103. So displays of feminine sexuality are always misguided?

Think through what you're saying here.

[prayin4rain]

159. no, not ALWAYS. n/t

[Tallison]

163. Good, because societies in which women are not free to express

their sexuality are scarier than those in which they sometimes feel pressured to do so. Be careful of assuming that women only demonstrate their sexuality under pressure. Sometimes they do so out of pure pride and joy.

[prayin4rain]

166. I didn't say ONLY either n/t

[superduperfarleft]

77. I'm male, a vegan, and a radical animal rights looney, & I agree with you 100%. n/t

[Zhade]

87. Look, I hate PETA's arrogant (and wrong) sense of superiority...

...but is it exploitation if these women give their informed consent? I don't think so.

[BurtWorm]

114. These women are not the issue. This is nothing compared to other shit Peta has pulled.

http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2006/12/16/feminism-bunny-hugging-and-why-peta-still-sucks/

http://www.feministing.com/archives/007762.html

http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/?p=133

http://www.bitchmagazine.org/post/which-peta-campaign-do-you-hate-the-most-vote-now

http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-search.fcgi?IncludeBlogs=2&search=peta

[vanderBeth]

94. There are many things that make me sick with PETA like their support of terrorists

and supposedly putting down of many of the animals they take in and many of their backwards policies.

I think that the girls are certainly able to do what they what and aren't necessarily exploited, but they do look like asses and are distracting from the issues.

EDIT: Maybe exploited in the sense they don't know that PETA is just using their willingness to get half naked to be their pawns, effectively devaluing the issues. :shrug:

[flvegan]

102. I love ConsumerFreedom talking points.

So right wing, so welcome.

[vanderBeth]

105. What are you talking about?

[flvegan]

106. Did I stutter?

[Hugabear]

97. Those poor miserable women, being forced to protest like that

Can't you just see the look of misery on their faces? It's obvious these women were given no choice in this matter. Poor women, can't think for themselves, they have no control over their actions.

:sarcasm:

[mitchum]

104. Because they are essentially an "oh-so-edgy" ad agency?

And Ingrid is one hell of a stringy-assed lech?

[truebrit71]

107. I will need to inspect many more pictures of the semi-naked protestors..

...in order to fully determine to what degree they may or may not have been degraded...The article says that they wore nothing more than fake bearskins, underwear and high heels...the most important question left unanswered is did they wear pasties or not?

Oh, and to the OP...GET OVER YOURSELF.

Of all the things to get your knickers in a twist about...THIS is the most important one you could find?

Wow...:eyes:

[johnaries]

109. Because it's a stereotype.

If a man wants to impress a woman, buy her jewelry. But not cubic zirconium, REAL "stones".

If a man REALLY wants to impress a woman, buy her furs. But not dyed rabbit. REAL endangered species furs.

Whether that's what a woman really wants or not, that's what many men (who have the money to afford such gifts) THINK they want.

They're trying to change a stereotype.

[Quantess]

127. That's nice, except that not all advertisers appeal only to men, unfortunately, LOL

The converse message to women is, don't ask for a fur, don't wear fur, don't buy fur for yourself (some women have been known to).

[hyphenate]

112. Interestingly enough

The stunt worked:

Greek police briefly detained two animal rights activists who took their clothes off outside the British embassy in Athens today to protest against the use of bearskin hats by Buckingham Palace guards.

The two British women were released shortly after the protest, which was organised by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.

<snip>

"We wanted to draw attention to the problem," said Ewa Zanicka, from Poland.

After talks with animal rights activists this month, the Ministry of Defence said it was open to using synthetic fur if a good enough replacement for bearskin could be found.

(From the OP's link)

[Gwendolyn]

116. Except those talks with MoD happened two weeks ago.

[BurtWorm]

117. This stunt did not work.

It says "after *talks* with animal rights activists this month," the policy was changed. It doesn't say this stunt had anything to do with the policy change. This stunt was even apparently pulled *after* the policy had changed. Brilliant.

[RaleighNCDUer]

141. It's call, keeping the heat on.

A government official SAYING they'll do something is a far cry from actually DOING it, once the public attention has shifted elsewhere.

"We'll establish a study" is the oldest deflection in the books.

[BurtWorm]

144. Keeping the heat on the British governmnet... in Greece?

Where the pun on "bear" and "bare" doesn't even work?

:wtf:

[RaleighNCDUer]

145. It made the news here - you think it didn't make the news in Britain?

:wtf:

[BurtWorm]

147. Of course it made news in Britain. That's where the story was from.

But news that's just "cute" like this story isn't serious pressure. This is just Peta being naughty again. That's all Peta seems capable of being is naughty. Some radicals!

[goodgd_yall]

118. That's a strange OP

It's an attention getter for a good cause. What is the big deal?

[BurtWorm]

119. This.

http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-search.fcgi?IncludeBlogs=2&search=peta

[goodgd_yall]

120. I don't see a problem

THe women participating in the ad campaign are doing it of their own free will, but more importantly, all I'm seeing is nakedness. What's wrong with that?

Oh...and it's for a good cause. We really shouldn't be killing animals for their fur.

[BurtWorm]

121. It's the pattern I'm talking about.

The pattern of Peta using images of naked women, not usually this tame, to get media attention for themselves. If this was the only instance of the pattern, it wouldn't merit even a passing glance. This is part of a 30-year-old pattern of Peta sticking it to feminists as they stick it to animal abusers. I have no problem with doing the latter, but there's no good reason to do the former over and over and over at the same time.

[goodgd_yall]

124. I can see

how some people might be offended, believing they are exploiting women, but I don't get that. I actually found the ABC striptease quiz amusing and cute. And I'm a person that does not like to see women exploited as sex objects. But I just don't get the sense that this is something meant to appeal to male fantasies; it's a take off on using sex to sell a product. That's how I see it, and that's why it makes me laugh rather than outraged.

[BurtWorm]

125. Thank you for explaining your point of view intelligently.

:toast:

I can see where you're coming from.

[goodgd_yall]

139. I realized

that I was actually sympathetic to your point of view. But my own reaction to the PETA ads didn't have the same effect of, say, an airline ad that shows sexy-looking Asian women with a "f*ck me" look that you realize is aimed at causasion male fantasies about asian women/

[Quantess]

126. Oh, shut up, you prude.

I am completely serious.
Get your priorities in order, please.

[BurtWorm]

131. Well said. That's putting the old dot on the i.

:eyes:

[Quantess]

132. I read some of the replies after my initial response, above.

And now I have a greater understanding of the wide variety of posts and responses, sometimes from you.

Sometimes, the Original Post is lacking what will be found in the subsequent posts.

[BurtWorm]

133. Indeed.

I regret having started this thread on this premise. It's the pattern that bothered me, not this particular image. I was assuming the rest of DU was up to speed on Peta's past outrageousness and insensitivity to women and feminism. I hope I won't make that mistake again.

:toast:

[RaleighNCDUer]

142. Feminists who deny sexuality are not feminists. nt

[BurtWorm]

154. That's a non sequitur!

Who's talking about feminists denying sexuality? The complaint against Peta is that they objectify women's bodies to attract attention to themselves. Just as beer and car companies do.

[RaleighNCDUer]

158. No, you are absolutely wrong.

It is one of a few campaigns of theirs that is very pointed in its message. Unlike car companies or beer companies, there is a direct thematic link with the unclad models:

1) the pun "bare skin" and "bearskin". One is objectionable. Which one?

2) the older campaign of "rather wear nothing than fur". One is objectionable. Which one?

It DIRECTLY plays on Victorian prudery, in highlighting that nudity is LESS objectionable than killing animals for their fur. That is, in fact, the whole POINT of the campaign. Without nude or semi-nude models there would be no contrast, thus no campaign. The one is the counterpoint to the other.

YOU are the one denying womens' sexuality. By accepting the assumption that women being naked automatically objectifies them you are buying into that Victorian mindset; like many purported feminists, you are the flipside of that same coin. You are denying the validity of the statement these women are making because YOU are uncomfortable about their nudity.

PETA is not selling a product. They are not hawking any goods. They are promoting a message - and in this, in McCluhan's words, the medium is the message.

[BurtWorm]

161. Bull. Shit.

They are selling their brand. That is what these stunts do. They get Peta in the news so that it's not about animal liberation so much as about Peta. They admit they're media sluts. That's their word, not mine.

How I feel about women's sexuality is totally irrelevant. (You have no clue how I feel about it. None. And the only reason I can confidently state that is you're totally wrong.)

[MrSlayer]

128. PETA sucks but I see nothing degrading here.

I encourage this sort of behavior.

[Forkboy]

137. I'm going back to GD-P. You guys are nuts!

[VeggieTart]

146. Sex sells, my dear

But it's also a lazy man's (or woman's) refuge when trying to get a message or a product across--splash naked or scantily clad women across a screen or on a street corner so people will pay attention to you. Or will they pay more attention to the medium than the message?

PETA is all about promoting its brand and its image. They're all about starfucking, celebrity spokespeople, and stunts to get its name out there. They're so fucking shallow. I won't argue that they haven't done some good, but then they go and try to get a New York town to change its name from Fishkill to Fishsave or get Germany to change a city's name from Hamburg to Veggieburg, and you gotta wonder--what the hell are they thinking?

There are a number of pro-vegan groups that get their message across without resorting to such cheap, lazy tactics, and since Friday is my day off, I'm going to go volunteer at one right now.

[BurtWorm]

162. Thanks. Well said.

:toast:

[progressivebydesign]

148. because some women insist on degrading animals to elevate themselves. n/t

[Orsino]

149. This is taking advantage of societal sexism.

I think they've found a way to accomplish something good out of an enormous cultural negative. It's not as though they are forced into this, so I will guardedly applaud their action.

The decision-makers they're fighting are overwhelmingly men, so there is a bit of justice in making sexism eat itself.

[fascisthunter]

153. You Dislike PETA.... I Get It

there are plenty reasons to pick on PETA but this accusation is a bit goofy.

[Zomby Woof]

155. PETA did a damn good job with the pig farm video

I think they are far more effective when they do Upton Sinclair type of exposes, and what they did this week has effectively made me re-think my dietary practices. Seriously.

[BurtWorm]

157. I agree.

I respect them more when they change lives rather than provide more noise for the spectacle.

[jpgray]

156. A lot of the replies in this thread are non-sensical

BurtWorm's point, as I take it, is that one shouldn't market one ill of our society to stamp out another. The ill I refer to isn't our puritanical view of the human body, but rather the sexual exploitation of women. Displaying women as sex objects to promote animal rights would hardly be my first choice of method for battling cruelty to animals, but then I wouldn't focus my ire on Al Gore or Michael Moore either, seeing as there are far more harmful targets out there. "Degrading" isn't the way I would refer to it, but "exploitative" is pretty near the mark.

[BurtWorm]

160. Yes, exploitative is a better word.

Thank you! My point exactly. Previous Peta stunts that had naked women in cages taking the place of animals were less defensible than this relatively mindless stunt.

:toast:

[Tulum_Moon]

165. I'LL Say It Here!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

PETA GO SUCK IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[mrreowwr_kittty]

168. My question is: Why do they think it works?

Yeah, I know the whole "sex sells" thing, but it doesn't always. IMHO, all PETA has ever done with these ridiculous campaigns is embarrass the women participate in them, and titillate a bunch of guys who will not change their behavior with regards to animals one bit. And they manage to piss off women who would be sympathetic to their cause at the same time. Stupid.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

169. I really wish they would drop that banner.