A Brief History of PETA's disgusting sexist campaigns (in pictures)

[Bonobo]

This thread is for those of you who don't know exactly what you are supporting when you are supporting PETA.
I would like to know who here thinks that human beings acting like the omnivores they are is more serious of a problem than violence towards women?
I am the father of a 15 year old daughter and I certainly know which side I fall on with regards to that question.
PETA is a contributor towards violence against women with these nauseating campaigns.

But don't believe me.

Make up your own mind.

Are you comfortable with young boys and girls seeing these images and internalizing this kind of attitude towards women?
-------------------------------------------------

[leftofcool]

1. It is disgusting

While I applaud PETA's ideology, I loathe their tactics and hypocrisy.

[nosmokes]

2. I believe it's more important to address where and how we get our food than

it is to worry about how some people protest.The omnivore argument is all fine and well, but why must an animal spend it's life being tortured and raised in a manner that is destroying *my* planet too so you can enjoy a cheap steak?

And if any of these images cause violence against women there's a whole lot of cylinders misfiring in the mental engine... It's not that I'm unsympathetic to the cause, but I think you're casting the net way too wide on this one brother.

[leftofcool]

3. So, it's okay for a young girl of 12

to see these pics in the hopes that she will never eat meat? PETA has a piss poor reputation and no creds in this country and these pictures are part of the reason.

[nosmokes]

104. It's OK for everyone to see these pictures.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

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

[arcadian]

16. Yeah I guess this poster cares more about consenting adults naked in public

then they do about the garbage that we put in our mouths that is killing us and the planet.

[tonysam]

48. I don't give a shit about your cult. Veganism isn't natural.

But you use propaganda to put forward something that is completely reprehensible to most people.

Animals eat animals. That's the way it is, that's the way it will always be. Plants can't exist without being supported by dead animals or animal excrement, by the way, so even vegans "exploit" animals.

[superduperfarleft]

56. Hurp durp de durp.

[greencharlie]

62. why so vague... how do you REALLY feel?

lol...

[BlueIris]

4. I don't support its "by any means necessary" approach.

Like a lot of "activist" organizations, its lost its way (and humanity) in the last twenty years.

[Warren Stupidity]

6. Apparently they got your attention.

Well done PETA!

[Bonobo]

11. Yeah, negative attention.

I am just going to teach my children that if they had a real argument to make, they wouldn't need to resort to such lows.

But even so, you did not address my OP.

Are you saying that the end justifies the means?

Are you saying that it is okay to send out horrible messages to impressionable children to get across their point?

How is it different than billboards showing bloody, cut-up fetuses?

Oh, I am sure you won't respond to these points. That would require too much thinking.

[skipos]

64. So it isn't okay to have anti-war posters with bloody bodies in them?

I really disagree with you on that.

[DailyGrind51]

7. PETA is rather juvenile when it comes to marketing its message.

The feminists whom they need as allies will be immediately offended.

[Confusious]

8. Ah, PETA, I don't think anyone's listening

[dems_rightnow]

9. Why are there arrows pointing to the breasts in #3?

Can their target audience not find them?

[Confusious]

10. It's pointing to the kids seeing the boobs.

Like it's a bad thing.

[arcadian]

17. Oh GAWD!!! Boobies!!!!!

;-)

:eyes: <- Who will think of the CHILDREN!!!! :rofl:

[Starry Messenger]

20. It's also funny since both children are wearing pacifiers

Which means they may not have even been weaned yet, or have just recently stopped the bottle or breast-feeding. A pacifier is a...substitute nipple...

:rofl:

[jp11]

12. I'm not seeing the sexism or violence towards women.

They aren't being any more sexist than just about any advertising you'd see in a newspaper, magazine, tv ad, hear on a radio commercial, internet ad etc because a topless or scantily clad attractive young women gets more attention than a topless or scantily clad man period. Toss in the way women are portrayed as weak or to be defended/upheld as our mothers/sisters/daughters you get an additional outrage factor from people.

Violence towards women, there isn't any, it is a comparison towards the meat we eat and the fact that we must kill animals to then carve them up and sell their flesh since very few of us ever think about how that cow turns into a hamburger or want to, the bloody women and packaged women put that question to your mind or so peta thinks.

PETA is about shock and outrage, pushing their beliefs in your face while claiming to be morally superior their hypocrisy is more disturbing to me than the sideshow they put on the sidewalks to make themselves feel good and coax ignorant good meaning people to hand over money to them. I'd add that in some places it is legal and permissible for a women to appear topless so we can't cower to what would the children think, if that bothers you then you'd need to work to reverse or enact laws that do not allow women to appear topless in public. I believe some feminists would argue that doing so goes against their rights but you can explain to them it is about the children or whatever you believe.

[Bonobo]

15. Wow. nt

[Mad_Dem_X]

22. Are you kidding me?

So, why don't they ever use naked MEN in their ads?

[Bunny]

28. Yep. Have they ever, EVER, used naked, stamped and bloodied men in their ads?

How anyone can miss the misogyny and exploitation in their campaigns is really beyond me.

[jp11]

79. Naked and bloodied I have no idea.

Seeing what you want and what is there are two different things.

[jp11]

78. There is a post here showing they do.

[seabeyond]

13. peta... pro life?

Houston -- When pro-life supporters arrive in Houston on January 18 to protest the future opening of a six-story Planned Parenthood facility, they may be met with a challenge. That's because PETA is negotiating with outdoor advertisers to place a billboard ad near the building--an ad that shows newly hatched chicks and reads, "Pro-Life? Go Vegan. PETA."

PETA's goal? To urge people in the pro-life movement to respect the sanctity of life every time they eat--by rejecting the slaughterhouse.
Click here to see the billboard.

"Eating meat supports horrible cruelty to animals, and of course, it also entails killing them," says PETA Vice President Bruce Friedrich. "Everyone who is 'pro-life' has the opportunity to show it every time he or she sits down to eat--by choosing a vegetarian diet."

http://www.peta.org/mc/NewsItem.asp?id=14149

[Bonobo]

14. Great catch! Their tactics are the same, so I wouldn't be surprised.

I guess they don't care whose bed they sleep in.

[Orsino]

19. I approve of this.

Placing an antiwar billboard would similarly be a good way of urging so-called pro-lifers to confront possible contradictions in their political views.

It may be missing a point--that "pro-life" typically limits its focus to human life, and particularly to fetuses--but it is a worthy, coherent effort.

[seabeyond]

30. they arent challenging pro life. they are embracing, encouraging, validating pro life. nt

[Orsino]

42. I think they're just looking for converts.

They have no interest in validating anti-choice activism.

[seabeyond]

44. which is the argument. at the expense of women,.... always. nt

[Orsino]

50. I don't understand that last post...? n/t

[MadHound]

18. I think your objections to these ads says more about you, your mindset and your politics

Than it does anything else.

If you object to PETA, fine, but be upfront about it rather than taking the chickenshit, prudish "oh it's sexism" tactic. You remind me of the folks who got similarly upset about ERA protests and other such like protests.

Oh the horrors, a naked female body:eyes:

[Bonobo]

21. Wow, a mind reader who has no fucking idea what he's talking about!

[MadHound]

24. Don't have to read your mind,

You did a very succinct post on your viewpoints concerning this issue. Very succinct, not very flattering for you.

[Confusious]

23. It may say something about a mindset

But it says nothing about politics. I always love how some people here want everyone to march in goosestep.

If you are liberal you must support X!

If you are liberal you must support Y!

If you are liberal you must support PETA!

Bullshit. PETA is a joke. Their tactics and their myopia have done nothing to stop people from eating meat.

PETA is a guy with a bullhorn everywhere he goes. The library, the grocery store, work. Regardless of what the situation calls for, they use a bullhorn.

I support eating LESS meat. I support destroying factory farms. I support animals we use for food having a nice pasture to move around in.

I don't support PETA.

[MadHound]

25. Where did I say in my post that you must be X in order to be a liberal?

Oh, that's right, I didn't even use the word liberal anywhere in my OP.

Project much?

You don't support PETA, that's nice, I'm happy for you. Whatever.

Learn to deal with the fact that there are people who don't agree with you. And next time try arguing on the merits of the issues brought up, not what you think the issue should be. Otherwise you wind up sounding like, well, a guy with a bullhorn.

[Confusious]

29. Graduate of DU debate I see.

Imply something then back off "I didn't SAY that!" "I didn't use THAT word!" I've seen enough of that tactic to know it was implied. Your entire denial is an admission.

I think your objections to these ads says more about you, your mindset and your politics than it does anything else.

I think your objections to these ads says more about you and your politics

Since you used "and" it's proper.

[MadHound]

58. And you apparently lack reading comprehension,

And prefer to ascribe motives and actions to people with little or no evidence. Sad, really, really sad.

[Confusious]

93. Now it's reading comprehension.

I don't think so. :eyes: :crazy:

How about poor writing. That would explain things.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

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

[MadHound]

57. Typical keyboard commando

Can't argue facts so you pull out the personal insults.

Get back to me when you want to actually debate issues, not hurl insults.

[booley]

66. Actually I am not seeing it either.

I didn't see the poster say that one had to have one position or another.

He was arguing that the way people supported their positions sucked.

I have to agree. There are lots of fallacious arguments, hyperbole and not really seeming to care what the other person was saying.

Seriously, don't we have anything better to do then engage in these moronic flame wars?

[zazen]

26. the men in PETA photos aren't depicted bloodied or ready for the butcher

If they were, the viewer would think "Jeffrey Dahmer." PETA doesn't go that far, because they know subliminally, it's "edgy" to show women butchered and in a body bag, but it's tasteless at best and cannibalistic at worst to depict men that way.

I've been a vegetarian since I was 20 years old and given money to PETA. I'm also a radical feminist and familiar with Nikki Craft's campaign against PETA. I fall somewhere in the middle.

If PETA had stopped at the nudity of "stars" of both sexes, I'd be okay with it. Or if they equally called out pornographers on photos of supposedly bloodied women--and there's a thriving porn genre of tortured women--then one could say they're educating their audience.

As is, in a society that is largely blind to the harms of violent pornography even when it's in a photo right in front of them, PETA appears to be privileging animal rights over women's rights.

If not, ask yourself--why don't they show a black male's body marked off like meat ready for the butcher? If they did, everyone would be screaming racism, and PETA knows it. We're trained to recognize racism much more than we are sexism. The latter looks "natural" and is there "free speech."

[ProgressiveProfessor]

27. People focus on the pictures but some of us remember the harassment campaigns that

ended up targeting older women. That was truly sexist and horrific. At one point I actively intervened in what were assaults on those women

[salguine]

31. Who knew Larry Flynt headed up PETA?

[seabeyond]

34. playboy, not flynt.

Historically, sexual stereotyping, exploitation and objectification have harmed women. The women at PeTA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) have the right to use their bodies. Do they pose nude? No, they're fake nudes. Do they even portray liberating images of women and nudity? No. They work with Playboy Magazine where women are herded like cattle in limiting, stereotypical mass media presentations; or PeTA covers the body of the Go Go's cowering in shame behind well placed banners. These advertisement campaigns are not any expression of courage expressed by the Go Go's or by PeTA or any of their members, either.

The upper half of this PeTA advertisement (Kimberly Hefner less the dildo) originally read "to go vegetarian" appeared as a cut-out poster in "Stars & Stripes," the most widely circulated newspaper on military bases around the world. PeTA hopes to turn the men killing the people in Afghanistan, and around the world, into vegetarians.

http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/PETA/peta.html

[G_j]

32. I know a woman who has done many PETA protests,

sometimes topless. All I can say is that I know her as a strong, brilliant, independent, courageous, committed woman. She has my utmost respect and admiration.

The utter cruelty that is behind the meat industry dwarfs anything that can be said about these protest campaigns. It's absolutely evil.
Have you seen Food Inc.?

[seabeyond]

35. what does you going topless have to do with abuse of animals? nt

[G_j]

39. not me

was I that unclear?

I'm not a member of PETA, you can ask them what they hope to convey with the symbolism of their protests.

I will say that the state of factory farming in the US, is beyond disgusting. It is a horror story.
As Americans accept this, it's no wonder so many also accept torture. And people worry about kids seeing nakedness?
Bring them to a factory farm, and explain to them why we embrace a depraved cruelty on a scale unimaginable.

[salguine]

101. Okay, I'll try. What does HER going topless have to do with abuse of animals?

[G_j]

102. obviously

it is a way of getting the public's attention.

[salguine]

105. Yeah...The message doesn't get the public's attention, the tits do. Which is why

it's a stupid tactic. If a fully dressed woman approaches me on the street and asks for a minute of my time to speak about an issue, I'll actually listen to what she has to say. If a woman approaches me on the street with her boobs hanging out, I know I'm not going to pay attention to what she's babbling about because I can't take her seriously, because her boobs are hanging out.

[G_j]

112. I have have met fully clothed animals rights activists also

signed many petitions, changed my lifestyle somewhat. I really am not that concerned with the messenger, but the message.
I'm glad people still exercise the hugely revolutionary act of nakedness, but other than that, who am to tell them how to get their message across?
Would we even be talking about this?

[Upton]

36. These women chose to partcipate

I don't see anyone holding a gun to their heads. I congratulate them on their dedication to animal rights.

[seabeyond]

37. feminist animal activist without have to strip down to be heard, or exploiting one to stop

exploitation of another. and effective.




“Gloria Steinem expressed her severe discomfort at participating at an event for sponsored by Covance after she was alerted to the fact that thousands of animals suffer in the Covance laboratories. She stated, ‘Animal abuse is so connected to domestic abuse -- literally in a household, but societally in a more general way, too.’ Using one's power to harm others is contrary to Ms. Steinem's life's work and Covance was dropped as a sponsor for the event.”

What I love about this story is not just the big black eye to Covance's PR machine in Madison (where the company has a high profile due to its massive animal-experimentation lab outside the city), but the fact that Steinem explicitly puts animal rights in the wider context of social justice. She situates the issue, as it should be, alongside the broader issue of fighting the oppressive mentality that companies like Covance share with domestic abusers or any perpetrators of violence who believe that "might makes right."

Hopefully, this will be food for thought for all the people who comment on this blog wondering why animal rights people don't do more to fight other forms of oppression. The point is that people who care about animal rights, like Gloria Steinem, just have a better view of the big picture. Injustice and violence needs to be stamped out wherever it crops up—and no matter who the victims are.

http://blog.peta.org/archives/feminism/

[seabeyond]

38. women fucking vegetables ... encourage vegetarian in such a respectful manner.

But I'm also a lifelong feminist, and I have been increasingly shocked and horrified by PETA's casual exploitation of gender stereotypes and objectification of the female body in an effort to raise support for its activism. If you've seen any of PETA's ads, you know what I'm talking about. This commercial was banned from the Super Bowl, for obvious reasons (surely there are ways to convince people to go vegetarian without showing a scantily clad woman preparing to fuck a bunch of asparagus), but PETA has repeatedly launched advertisements which throw respect for women (or, for that matter, for men) out the window in the name of animal liberation. Just a few examples: Alicia Silverstone stripped naked for a PETA ad, with the tagline "I'm a vegetarian" above her obviously airbrushed body. The strippers of Rick's Cabaret posed nude for another ad campaign, which declared "We'd rather go topless than wear fur." In a demonstration last year, PETA used a pregnant woman in a cage as part of a demonstration against mistreated pigs. And just to prove that they could perpetuate damaging male stereotypes as well as sexualizing women, PETA produced an ad last year featuring Mickey Rourke, who inveighed upon viewers to "have the cojones to fix your dog." Sometimes they like to use a psuedo-feminist, "love your body" type of rhetoric to mask the fact that they're blatantly exploiting women's bodies (tagline: "Be comfortable in your own skin: don't wear fur"). But usually, PETA throws itself behind campaigns that unashamedly objectify women in the service of "justice."

This is similar to problems that I have with other methods used to encourage people - usually women - to go vegan. On Princeton's feminist and gender issues blog, Equal Writes (shameless plug: I'm a co-editor), I wrote a post about the "Skinny Bitch" book series, which play on women's insecurities about their bodies to shame them into changing their diet. Another post on this blog points out the obvious problems in encouraging girls to stop eating meat because it will "make you fat" (another one from PETA - it boggles my mind that they're not called out more often for this shit). The really aggravating thing for me, though, is that vegetarianism is in many ways a healthier diet. So why tell women that veganism is the way for them to become a "skinny bitch" rather than a "healthy woman"? Because it's easier to play on women's existing negative self-image. Our culture has done a great job of laying the groundwork for anyone to shame women into eating proscriptively, and rather than helping women feel better about their bodies - and at the same time, work for animal rights - PETA and other activists take the low road.

http://studentsforanimalrights.blogspot.com/2009/05/why-vegetarian-feminists-are-upset-with.html

[mkultra]

82. while i agree that using fear and body image anxiety are wrong

I am at a loss to understand the ill of women exploiting their own bodies to forward a cause they believe in. We all exploit or natural gifts in different ways so in a sense, i don't consider voluntary self-exploitation to be immoral providing that choice is not made out of societal or cultural force. Help me understand.

[superduperfarleft]

84. There are very few choices any of us make that are not borne out of societal or cultural forces. n/t

[mkultra]

85. true, so let me clarify by adding the word "undue"

For example, limiting available employment options for women so they are driven into exploitative work would be considered undue cultural force. None of these participants turned to these ads out of necessity.

[superduperfarleft]

87. You could argue that they chose to do this because they've been raised to believe that

using their bodies in this way is the only way to have value.

If I saw women of all sizes being portrayed in these ads, that'd be one thing. If PETA wasn't using fat shame to sell their cause, or mocking women who don't shave their pubic areas in accordance with a patriarchal society's standards, that'd be another thing. But PETA is clearly not looking for women to empower themselves, they're looking to titillate men.

And considering the fact that PETA's campaigns usually end up with an argument about PETA, not animals, I'd say there isn't even a net benefit to objectifying women in this manner.

[mkultra]

89. well, i cannot disagree regarding some of your points

I do believe that using shame, is destructive to feminine self image and that the effectiveness of their adds is questionable. I guess i still fail to see why "titillating men" is wrong. I also didn't see the shaving add as mocking but rather as again trying to get the attention of men.

Personally, i think men are their target and frankly, these ads get my attention pretty quick. they don't turn me off but they do make me reflect. They seem to be attacking the sexual fantasy centers of my brain which exist either due to culture or evolution. You may be tempted to disregard my argument as bias by i would encourage you to consider my point of view.

[seabeyond]

94. women fucking veggies and critisim of the pubic hair is about getting attention of men. yes

hence the issue. how demeaning and degrading can we be with the use of women in order to get male attention. gang rape, rippin off clothes (skin) hacking women to piece (butcher) in order to get males attention.

just what do we get to do to the womans body, to get men to pay attention.

same with breast cancer ad. lets put a big chested woman on an ad, in a bikini and have her slow motion walk around a pool, camera focused on tits jiggling to draw male attention to a disease that kills women. cause really, .... our men are so incapable of empathy or sympathy, that they cannot focus on any cause, whether the abuse of animal or death of women, unless a woman is turning him on.

that is so fuking insulting to men

[mkultra]

98. sounds like a significant stretch

I sure there are other means of gaining attention and these surely aren't the only options BUT, gang rape is violence where as sex is not. I must have missed the gang rape add or the ripping of clothing add. I did see the butcher add but i interpretted it as a trojan horse type ad. In effect, the nudity was an attention getter while the butcher lines where meant to force reflection on the kinship humans have with animals.

Even if you ran an add like you theorized, i certainly would never take it to mean that although it does get a mans attention, that men are incapable of attention otherwise.

[seabeyond]

99. fucking veggies, discussing pubic hair, anything to get mans attention

even as you suggest the theorized ad, that too seems to be ok to draw mans attention

so basically, anything done to the womans body to get mans attention is fine

but, we dont need to go to the efforts of degrading, dehumanizing, demeaning to get mans attention. we just want to

what sense does that make

[mkultra]

100. again is see your descriptions as slight mischaracterizations

You are asserting that they will do "anything to get a mans attention" which seems hardly the case. Also, none of this opens the gate to "anything done to a woman's body is fine" The point of dicsussion was wether these women choosing to use their own bodies in this way is somehow wrong. I think we can all agree that anyone who felt the way you have described is wretched.


Yes, i am saying that they do not need to use these methods to get a mans attention, but it is the method the have chosen. Again, this alone does not make it wrong. If they believe that it is the most effective method, then that is their choice. I would consider it an effective method of gaining attention.

Are you functioning from the point of view that sex is itself immoral or wrong?

[seabeyond]

107. likewise, must sex for you be about degradation, humiliation, disrespect?

do i think sex is immoral or wrong? wtf?

good try. i get that comment from every man defending his sexism along with many more insults. nice to be above the fray with a poster that actually asks in question instead of just bottomlining it to name calling.

[mkultra]

110. I didnt see anything degrading about the ads

I think that's the core of this question though. Why do you see the use of sex in an ad as degrading to the participants? It is my feeling that they where not degrading or humiliating. To be fair, i didn't see any that where rape related and i did feel the ones using shame of body image as degrading. I guess im referring to the nude ones and the sexually suggestive ones only. We can discuss the others if you like.

[seabeyond]

108. the point has never been about whether women choosing to do this with their body is wrong. nt

[mkultra]

111. Ok, with all due respect, what is the point

because that is exactly how i saw the point. I simply felt that using sexually suggestive or nude imagery to appeal to an audience was not degrading to either the participants or women in general.

[seabeyond]

40. vegans of color

As abolitionist vegans and feminists, we oppose the use of sexist tactics in the animal advocacy movement. Ethical animal rights veganism is part of the logical conclusion of opposition to the exploitation of all sentient beings — both human animals and non-human animals. Opposing speciesism is incompatible with engaging in sexism or any other form of discrimination, such as racism, heterosexism, classism, and other forms of oppression.

http://vegansofcolor.wordpress.com/2010/03/10/joint-statement-by-a-group-of-abolitionist-vegan-feminists-for-international-womens-day/

[Tom Rinaldo]

41. I understand and accept PETA's anti wearing fur marketing campaign

Fur coats are more often worn by women then men, and they have been associated with glamour. Having actual women who are widely considered to be glamerous appearing saying that their own skin is more appealing than any animals fur is attention getting and it has some gender specific rational. And it can not be confused with violence against women.

PETA jumps the track when their anti eating and raising meat campaigns focus on nude women. I can see a rational for graphic images being used in them, but not gender specific ones. And the humans used in them should not look like super models, just everyday average people of all sizes and shapes.

[seabeyond]

43. why did they throw blood on only old ladies and not men wearing leather? nt

[Goblinmonger]

49. Because it was a fur campaign and not a leather one?

I'm vegetarian and I understand that leather is, largely, a by-product of the meat industry whereas fur exists just for fur.

[mkultra]

83. probably fear of violent retaliation.

[Brickbat]

45. K&R. I despise their tactics.

K&R to less than zero, of course.

[redqueen]

59. Yep, rec'd again to less than zero... of course.

[Iggo]

46. Yes. No.

[tonysam]

47. Some people around here think PETA and HSUS are animal welfare organizations

when in fact they are NOTHING of the kind; they support "animal liberation" which, translated, means a complete abolition of animal domestication and industries supporting it.

This also includes pet ownership, which is why PETA is big on killing stray animals and why it supports mandatory spay-neuter programs. After all, if you are nutty enough to believe pet ownership equals "slavery," as animals have "rights," something which only applies to people by the way, then the way to get rid of this "slavery" is to simply let pets die out naturally or not allow them to exist in the first place.

Most people wouldn't waste their money on these organizations if they knew the truth about them. They are not to be confused with the local animal shelter or ASPCA.

[Goblinmonger]

51. Um, people are animals, you know.

Just making sure you keep your terms correct when you rant about: "as animals have "rights," something which only applies to people by the way."

You got a link about this stuff you are sputtering about which isn't from those with interests counter to PETA? Careful before you give the links because it isn't called the "we love meat organization" but that's who supports them.

[superduperfarleft]

54. Hurp durp de durp. n/t

[Goblinmonger]

52. I think these pictures cover a variety of tactics

and you want to lump them all together.

Most shocking first--the women as "meat" and in a cage: It seems pretty clear to me that what they are saying is that this is a BAD thing. That we wouldn't treat these women this way but we do with non-human animals. They AREN'T saying that we should but that we wouldn't/shouldn't.

The star one: Sure, it's about naked bodies. It's about saying that the human body is beautiful. That you can be beautiful and not wear animal products or eat meat. And in this regard, there do the same with the male body.

[salguine]

53. Ever seen the segment on PETA on Penn & Teller's "Bullshit" show?

[superduperfarleft]

55. Hurp durp de durp.

[salguine]

86. Which means what, exactly?

[superduperfarleft]

88. That I could care less what some washed-up Vegas magicians shilling for CCF and CATO

have to say about anything. Nevermind the fact that most of that show was scary-music nonsense (a giant freezer in PETA HQ to store dead animals? Really? :rofl: ).

[salguine]

106. .

[superduperfarleft]

109. Well said. n/t

[mkultra]

115. Penn Gillette is himself full of bullshit.

[superduperfarleft]

60. While I'm not nearly as aggro as you are about it, I agree that many of PETA's campaigns are sexist

It's unfortunate that they have somehow been appointed to serve as the public face for veganism (even though they can't even be arsed to use the word "vegan" as opposed to "vegetarian").

Vegans who defend this type of thing should examine their own commitment to not turning sentient creatures, whether they are non-human animals or human women, into commodities. Sentient creatures should never be reduced to a means to an end.

[Goblinmonger]

67. Do you really think they are saying women are meat?

Or maybe they are saying the opposite?

[superduperfarleft]

68. They are using patriarchy to make a point.

You says "sex sells." Yes, it does, but for the sole reason that our society reduces women to objects that only have value if they're fuckable. PETA is perfectly happy to play into patriarchy not to confront it, but to make an ancillary "point." Our do you really think that the overgrown boys that say "huh huh huh boobs" are seriously considering the ethical implications of consuming animal products?

http://www.theonion.com/video/advocacy-group-decries-petas-inhumane-treatment-of,14359/
Advocacy Group Decries PETA's Inhumane Treatment of Women

[Goblinmonger]

72. Um, strawman?

I don't think I ever said "sex sells."

And, hey, Charlotte Ross is beautiful. If that puts me in the "huh huh huh boobs" crowd, then fine. But she is beautiful and the ad makes a strong statement that you don't need fur to be beautiful. I got it and I admittedly like boobs. So should all satire, then, be eliminated because people may not get it all the time?

[superduperfarleft]

74. How in the hell could this even remotely be called "satire?"

What are they satirizing? They are simply using naked women as a product to sell a cause.

I find it incredibly disappointing when vegans either don't know the meaning of the word "intersectionality" or they choose not to apply it when it comes to the non-human/human divide.

[Goblinmonger]

75. I didn't say it was satire, actually, though I think it is.

I asked if satire should also be eliminated since there are a lot of people who don't get the satire just like you said there are people that don't get the point of the "women are meat" ads.

But, the woman with the cuts of meat drawn on her is not using naked women as a product to sell a cause. It is showing something which most people should see as shocking--women as meat. Then they use that shock to transfer that to the same attitudes toward meat. (That would be the satire part if you aren't following along at home.)

I think those in PETA may say that not applying it to the non-human animal/human animal divide is the root of the problem they want to address. I am not a vegan but am an ethical vegetarian so I feel strongly about animal rights. We wouldn't put human animals through the suffering we do non-human animals when we really don't need to eat them to survive. So let's apply similar concepts of rights across your "divide."

[superduperfarleft]

76. Still not sure what satire has to do with it.

The problem is not with people getting or not getting PETA's point, the problem is any point they may have point is overshadowed by the hot naked lady in the middle of the street.

"I think those in PETA may say that not applying it to the non-human animal/human animal divide is the root of the problem they want to address."

I was talking more about them protesting the treatment of animals as commodities by reducing women to commodities. You simply can't remove placing half-naked girls in the street from the context of patriarchy, just like you can't remove the dressing up as KKK members in Times Square from the context of racism (after all, they're just wearing white sheets, what's the problem?).

And no offense, but claiming that you support "animal rights" while you still support animal exploitation as a vegetarian is a perfect example of the lack of sophistication on PETA's part when it comes to promoting animal rights. There's no wiggle-room when it comes to the term "rights."

[Goblinmonger]

77. So any nudity is women as commodity?

That's what I'm getting from you.

They are showing women as commodities because that is the shock value (not my claim for the Charlotte Ross type "I'd rather be naked than wear fur" ads because those are about showing beauty can be achieved without eating meat and wearing fur) they are hoping for. That women are not cuts of meat but the are forced to come to grips with that in the hopes that it translates to the attitudes toward non-human animals.

[superduperfarleft]

80. Of course that's not what I said.

You're either being obtuse or intentionally misrepresenting my position.

But fuck it, this guy said it better than me: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8351552&mesg_id=8352980

"not my claim for the Charlotte Ross type "I'd rather be naked than wear fur" ads because those are about showing beauty can be achieved without eating meat and wearing fur)"

Right, and Paris Hilton humping a Hardees burger was just to show that you can be beautiful by eating Hardees burgers. :eyes:

[skipos]

61. I am neither here nor there with Peta, but none of those pictures bother me

None of their naked guy ads bother me either.

[snooper2]

65. great way to end the thread :)

:)

[Beaverhausen]

70. these pics need their own thread

:hi:

[redqueen]

73. They have one:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8351552

[greencharlie]

63. I like the first ad... a lot. nt

[booley]

69. Oh my Gawds! Boobies!

Yes clearly if there's a naked woman or any acknowledgement that women have something to do with sex, then it must be sexist.

(and I guess the "Broccoli Boys" was homophobic)

:eyes:

Even though the ads could also be interpreted as anti sexist. I mean if one finds a plastic bag with a bloody woman disturbing then why should it be any different for any other kind of meat? The theme of the most shocking ads is that if it's wrong to treat human women this way then it's just as wrong to do it to animals.

Frankly the OP and many other posters seem more interested in what they want to think Peta believes then what Peta actually says it believes.

And this has nothing to do with whether one agrees with what they believe. How can you criticize the message when you don't know what it is?

I hate these threads because they are nothing but flame bait.

[-..__...]

71. "You don't find that offensive? You don't find that sexist?"...

"This is *1982* 2010, Bobbi Bonobo, c'mon!

That's *right*, it's 1982! 2010! Get out of the '60s. We don't have this mentality anymore.

Well, you should have seen the cover ad they *wanted* to do! It wasn't a glove, Genoa salami, believe me.

:smoke:

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

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

[Deep13]

90. Queen Victoria called, she wants her sensibilities back.

Let's be clear on what "sexism" means. It does NOT mean using sex to sell something. Rather, it means favoring one sex over the the other. Thinking that men should be doctors and women should be nurses is sexist.

Except that the ads are biased toward imagery of women, the only thing I find objectionable is that they are selling their message with something other than rational reasons. I don't appreciate being manipulated by advertisers using sexuality, pride, fear or guilt or anything other than the facts.

There is nothing dirty about the human body. There is nothing shameful about sexuality.

EDIT:

For the record, I find PETA to be a sanctimonious, extemist organiztion that does very little for animal welfare or conservation that spends most of its time hob-nobbing with Hollywood personalities and forcing their views on others with brow-beating and outright lies.

[seabeyond]

96. behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex

Main Entry: sex·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈsek-ˌsi-zəm\
Function: noun
Etymology: 1sex + -ism (as in racism)
Date: 1968
1 : prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially : discrimination against women
2 : behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex

[Deep13]

97. Exactly. nt

[Greyhound]

91. No worse than a thousand other ad campaigns, and this one is for a good cause.

I wonder why I've not seen you post any threads decrying sexism and objectification regarding any campaigns other than PETA's.
:kick: & U

[flvegan]

92. "PETA is a contributor towards violence against women"

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[freddie mertz]

95. Personally I am not offended.

Mostly pretty "soft" stuff.

I don't eat meat either.

[LanternWaste]

103. Quite difficult to perceive a valid difference...

Quite difficult to perceive a valid difference between sexism and Victorian prudishness anymore.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

113. It's absolutely disgusting.

Just as disgusting as Jonathon Swift's plan to butcher, market and sell the meat of poor Irish children.

Why won't somebody think of the children?

[undeterred]

114. So where's Pam Anderson?