In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

We Are All Buck-Naked

It’s a slow blogging couple of days for me, because I’m run down, but I wanted to expand on a comment I left over at pandagon in reference to PETA.

Julian Elson said this:

I’ve heard about PETA’s sexism before, but mainly from anti-porn feminists. I assume that opposition to soft porn and innuendo isn’t super-widespread here on Pandagon (although Hugo himself counts himself among their number, AFAIK). Besides suggestive advertising and pin-ups, how’s PETA sexist? (assuming that aforementioned things are, in fact, sexist) Is it just that the particular type of anti-fur models they use are all sorta “thin young blonde woman” types, and you never see an overweight, middle-aged black man standing naked at the chalkboard repeatedly writing “I’d rather go naked than wear fur?”

I remember two major campaigns: “I’d rather go naked than wear fur,” aka “Carnie Wilson shows some ankle,” and the one where a failure to get a Brazilian wax was equated with strangling a meercat and knotting its broken body around your neck.

Scott Lemieux at Lawyers, Guns, and Money puts it better than me:

Last month, Volokh suggested that women “might have more difficulty getting their husbands to move with them than men would have getting their wives to move with them (perhaps because the women’s spouses are more likely to have hard-to-move jobs than the men’s spouses)” and “might have more difficulty clerking, especially in a highly demanding clerkship, if they have children than comparable men would.” This is right, but of course this isn’t an alternative explanation to sexism–these practices constitute sexism.

Exactly. Saying, “Women are being used to sell a product–in this case, veganism–because people prefer to see them naked,” is like saying, “Women aren’t getting hired because women don’t have the same career support men do.” They aren’t alternative explanations to sexism–these practices constitute sexism. When PETA makes the marketing decision to use young, skinny, white, female bodies as advertising props, it is supporting cultural beliefs about what is and is not appropriate treatment for those bodies. It is using a cultural shorthand that makes it infinitely easier to market some women’s bodies as figurative consumer goods, and which further dictates that some bodies must be kept under wraps either because they are above or unworthy of exposure.

It’s easy to distinguish between nakedness as lighthearted attempt at humor and nakedness as transparent excuse for softcore–and easy to look at the way the softcore liberties are gendered. What if, say, Al Gore and his ass had agreed to be in a PETA ad, announcing that he would rather go naked than wear fur? Pretty fucking scary, sure, but funny, right? Funny because it’s Al Gore and here he is starkers in a national ad campaign. Because who wants to see his ass? Why would PETA ever think anyone would want to see his ass? Has he ever been reduced to a sexual object? By Tipper, even? Okay, now picture Halle Berry announcing that she’d rather go naked than wear fur.


126 thoughts on We Are All Buck-Naked

  1. I cannot even TELL you what a happy day it would be in Lizard-land if Al Gore’s ass showed up in an anti-fur commercial.

  2. I cannot even TELL you what a happy day it would be in Lizard-land if Al Gore’s ass showed up in an anti-fur commercial.

    Honestly, I’d find it kind of awesome, too, even though it would blow my mind a little. It’s mostly just the relative incongruity I wanted to point up.

  3. I think we need to start a petition for Al Gore to appear in an anti-fur ad.

    Frankly, though, sexism is the least of my problems with PETA.

  4. It’s mostly just the relative incongruity I wanted to point up.

    Yeah, I know, but you totally made my day in the process. Can’t you see the ad campaign?

    First image: the inside of a slaughterhouse, with the caption “Gory guts….”

    Second image: Al in the buff, looking resolute and wise, with the caption “or gutsy Gore?”

    Well, the marketing guys can spiff that up.

  5. Second image: Al in the buff, looking resolute and wise, with the caption “or gutsy Gore?”

    Only if he’s mimicking Washington’s “Crossing the Delaware” pose.

  6. I remember two major campaigns: “I’d rather go naked than wear fur,” aka “Carnie Wilson shows some ankle,” and the one where a failure to get a Brazilian wax was equated with strangling a meercat and knotting its broken body around your neck.

    Are you are referring to the “Fur Trim: Unattractive” ad, in which a photograph of a woman’s midsection is shown with pubic hair escaping from the edges of her underwear?

    Then there’s the footage of a man beating a woman to death for her fur coat. There are many, many more examples of sexism and misogyny at PETA. They seem to revel in it.

    You know, in spite of being vegan and in spite of supporting animal rights, I truly hate PETA. What a great idea: fighting the exploitation and abuse of animals through the exploitation and abuse of women. Way to go, buttheads.

  7. To answer his/her query, what about the fact that I’ve heard PETA throwing red paint (or blood) on women’s fur coats a million times but never heard of them doing that to men’s leather jackets?

  8. I didn’t know everyone hated PETA so much. I thought fighting for the ethical treatment off animals was a GOOD thing. I eat animals, but I sure do want them to be treated better by our society. Is this about the paint throwing, or is there more to it?

  9. Are you are referring to the “Fur Trim: Unattractive” ad, in which a photograph of a woman’s midsection is shown with pubic hair escaping from the edges of her underwear?

    That’s the one!

    You know, in spite of being vegan and in spite of supporting animal rights, I truly hate PETA. What a great idea: fighting the exploitation and abuse of animals through the exploitation and abuse of women. Way to go, buttheads.

    Exactly. I watched Lone Star last night and there’s this great line from a man whose fiancee’s family is so overjoyed to find out that she’s not a lesbian that they couldn’t care less what race he is: “It’s always heartwarming to see a prejudice defeated by a deeper prejudice.”

  10. PETA creeps me out for more reasons. They basically think that all domestic animals ought to be euthanized/sterilized out of existence. Most of the pets surrended to PETA are euthanized, in fact, because they’re not “free” or something, and they didn’t “choose” to be companions to humans (although do they “choose” to be euthanized? That’s the real question.).

    Screw that shit. There’s nothing “ethical” about PETA. If they want to re-educate the world about cruelty and so on, why don’t they start with the lions? You know, re-educate them so they don’t hunt gazelles. Bloody hell.

  11. what about the fact that I’ve heard PETA throwing red paint (or blood) on women’s fur coats a million times but never heard of them doing that to men’s leather jackets?

    Excellent point.

  12. What if, say, Al Gore and his ass had agreed to be in a PETA ad, announcing that he would rather go naked than wear fur? Pretty fucking scary, sure, but funny, right? Funny because it’s Al Gore and here he is starkers in a national ad campaign. Because who wants to see his ass?

    I’m picturing Al Gore naked right now.

  13. They basically think that all domestic animals ought to be euthanized/sterilized out of existence.

    No, they don’t. They encourage adoption from shelters and responsible care for pets. Their position on euthanasia of companion animals is, in my opinion (I worked 20+ years in shelters), absolutely solid. I’m not a PETA fan, but there’s plenty about them to criticize legitimately without misrepresenting what they say and what they stand for.

    why don’t they start with the lions? You know, re-educate them so they don’t hunt gazelles

    Yes, that’s a much better idea.

  14. Kathy: The upside of PETA is that they do a great job of setting the extreme. They compare chickens to holocaust victims (remind you of anyone?) and have generally made some really horrible shock campaigns. The nice thing is, that when people like the SPCA or the Humane Society try to agitate for better treatment of animals; they don’t come off as the “crazy ones” because PETA’s taken care of that.

    Also, the softcore porn and general disrespect towards women angle is well documented.

  15. Didn’t they have some “Got Milk?” style campaign that equated women with cows by showing a girl lifting up her shirt to show udders underneath?

    They also had campaigns which used images of concentration camps, lynchings and slavery to “raise awareness” about animal cruelty. Except that they pretty much “raised awareness” that they considered blacks and Jews to be animals.

    Lizard, they did have a bit of trouble in Virginia, IIRC, where it was found that they were euthanizing adoptable shelter dogs and putting them in a dumpster rather than trying to adopt them out.

  16. I am comforted to see that I am not the only one offended and disgusted by PETA’s lack of social responsibility in their ad campaigns. The ends do not justify the means.

    And yes, I am sure there are plenty of women who would protest all day long that it is their right to pose as they please, pretend to be beaten and what have you.

    It just seems awfully hypocritical, if not completely selfish, lazy or stupid, to not consider all the ramifications of one’s public actions carefully before stepping onstage. At least, for god’s sake have a defense beyond ‘its my right’ or ‘but they need our voice no matter what’.

    I mean why stop there? If abusing and objectifying women is fair game to get seen and using racism and bigotry works, why stop at ads? Why not some lynchings? Why not a rape or two to get the point across? How about a real beating as public art theatre? Wouldn’t that be dramatic?

  17. I didn’t know everyone hated PETA so much. I thought fighting for the ethical treatment off animals was a GOOD thing. I eat animals, but I sure do want them to be treated better by our society. Is this about the paint throwing, or is there more to it?

    I’m sure if you’ve read this far, you’ve gather that there _is_ more to it.

    Ethical treatment of animals is great, but using unethical treatment of people to get the point across is bullshit. Fuck PETA.

  18. They also had campaigns which used images of concentration camps, lynchings and slavery to “raise awareness” about animal cruelty. Except that they pretty much “raised awareness” that they considered blacks and Jews to be animals.

    Speaking as one of the “butthead” members of PETA–yes, blacks, Jews, gypsies, white people and all of us are animals. That is the point. “A Holocaust On Your Plate” demonstrates that every day, factory farming horrifically tortures sentient creatures. A pig or a chicken suffers as much as you or I would under similar conditions. Jews and blacks were tortured because they were considered throwaways, just as non-humans still are. That is the point, and it seems odd that you wouldn’t see that (and–just so you know–my mother hide to hide from Nazis during WWII).

    PETA members have never thrown blood. However, PETA has been extremely successful in cutting back the use of both fur and leather, and in eliminating some of the cruelty in the wool industry. PETA has also stopped massive lab animal cruelty across the nation and has stopped a number of cruel animal promotions and practices.

    As for Al Gore, he doesn’t even talk about factory farming when he asks Americans to do something about the environment, so I doubt he would want to be part of an anti-factory farming campaign. I consider the “I’d Rather Go Naked” ads appropriate as they are, but I imagine PETA would be open to having other models.

  19. Gosh, Diane, I can’t imagine why Jews and blacks, who had been treated inhumanely because they were considered sub-human by the dominant groups, would be offended at being compared to animals other than humans.

  20. Lizard, they did have a bit of trouble in Virginia, IIRC, where it was found that they were euthanizing adoptable shelter dogs and putting them in a dumpster rather than trying to adopt them out.

    Really? What the fuck for?

  21. I posted this at Pandagon too, just to round out the picture of PETA tactics:

    PETA has also run their campaign against KFC with the phrase “KFC cripples chickens” and protestors dressed in chicken costumes using wheelchairs or crutches. When disabled folks lodged complaints PETA staffers and even Newkirk, I believe, thought the complaints were because they were comparing disabled folks to animals. They don’t seem capable of understanding that using the stereotypes or history of a group of people’s oppression as a comparison for their cause without regard for how they perpetuate that oppression is offensive. And alienates people from their cause.

  22. Here’s my 2 cents on PETA.

    Last “Black Friday” I had the misfortune of running afoul of PETA on Union Square in San Francisco. They made their annual pilgrimage to get people to stop buying all those fur coats that everyone in San Francisco is contantly buying as Christmas gifts.

    Part of their protest was to drive a huge truck around and around Union Square with a giant picture of a skinned veal calf on it.

    Well, my then six year old daughter – a big animal lover – was horrified. She screamed and cried looking at the image. It took me a good ten minutes to calm her down. We managed to get away from the truck, only to encounter it again as we walked further on when it parked in front of PETA’s table.

    I went over to them to ask them to move it, having to yell a bit over my daughter’s hysterical crying.

    Three different PETA members proceeded to call me a “fucking bitch” repeatedly in front of my daughter and my nine year old niece and scream and yell about what an outrageous animal hater I am because I was upset over them getting my daughter upset.

    I tried to explain. One woman sort of cared, but she could not make herself heard over the loud expletives being shouted by her fellow PETA cohorts. Mostly her compassion over my daughter being upset consisted of her trying to explain to me that obviously their giant picture worked as designed.

    I sent letters and emails to PETA detailing the situation and inquiring whether such behavior was condoned by the organization, and I didn’t hear one word back.

    I also worked at a veterinary hospital where one employee was a staunch PETA advocate. She came into work one morning completely in a rage. She slammed doors, broke the coffee pot and refused to talk to anyone for hours. Why? Because she disagreed with another PETA person over where a rescue dog should be placed. Real professional.

    I’m sorry. I even used to give money to PETA back in the day, but the organization is really full of assholes and nutjobs. It is NOT about animal rights with these people. It is about CONTROL. They have issues.

  23. “A Holocaust On Your Plate” demonstrates that every day, factory farming horrifically tortures sentient creatures. A pig or a chicken suffers as much as you or I would under similar conditions. Jews and blacks were tortured because they were considered throwaways, just as non-humans still are.

    I know what the intent is, but do you really think that pigs and chickens have the same level of sentience, emotion, and intelligence as Jews and blacks and all those other human beings do? People aren’t opposed to these ad series because they think it’s okay for animals to suffer – they’re opposed because 1) they find it absurd to claim that hurting animals is the same as hurting human beings and 2) blacks specifically were TREATED LIKE and compared to animals during that whole slavery thing.

    If you had to choose between killing a pig and a human being, would it seriously be a difficult choice? Torturing a pig or a human being, again, hard choice?

  24. stekatz – reminds me of anti-abortion activists. Put up a grotesque picture, if it upsets people, you’ve, uh, made a point! Yeah!

  25. “A Holocaust On Your Plate” demonstrates that every day, factory farming horrifically tortures sentient creatures. A pig or a chicken suffers as much as you or I would under similar conditions. Jews and blacks were tortured because they were considered throwaways, just as non-humans still are.

    Yes, but one of the Nazi dehumanization strategies was to specifically liken them to animals. You know, in service of its own political goals. Can’t an oppressed group opt out of this sort of thing, if they think it insults the memory of those ancestors of theirs who were starved and tortured to death?

  26. Nomie, you’re right–that was a horrible and bizarre story.

    Your original post, though, indicated that PETA was officially anti-pet, which they emphatically are not.

    But they’re still largely yucky. I’m much fonder of HSUS and ASPCA, even though I personally wish they had a broader scope.

  27. I agree with nerdlet. I think the way chickens are treated in mass production factories is horrific, but… I don’t really think they’re self-aware.

  28. i’m also vegan and a (non-anti-porn-)feminist and i’m TOTALLY offended by peta’s campaigns. peta says that theirs are the most effective tactics of the animal rights movement. i beg to differ. this is from a letter i sent to them several years ago:

    “It is as simple as: it makes no sense to try to get people to stop objectifying and exploiting animals by objectifying and exploiting women. The animal rights movement is about teaching people true compassion and respect for all creatures. Blatantly appealing to people’s sexist attitudes in order to make them think about the ways in which animals are discriminated against is absolutely counter-productive in the long run.”

    in actuality, peta is spectacularly wrong, misguided, unethical and ineffective, especially considering how really mainstream, supported by celebrities, and moneyed they are. here’s my peta wall of shame” page and here’s two essays on “peta and a pornographic culture” part i and part ii.

    and speaking of the sexual politics of meat

  29. When it comes to the suffering of others, both human and non-human, I’ve observed that people’s ability to feel empathy tends to correlate with how many degrees of emotional separation exist between themselves and the being in question. It’s extremely easy for most human beings to establish many, many degrees of separation between themselves and other species of animals. I also know, at least personally, it’s easy for me to establish a degree of separation between myself and people who are different from me. If I have a particular prejudice toward that person, it’s even easier. So, it would seem that there are a few emotional/psychological mechanisms that are shared between the two kinds of relationships: emotional separation between human and animals vs. emotional separation between humans across the barriers of perceived difference. It’s simply more extreme between humans and other animals.

    As someone observed earlier, various groups of oppressed people have been treated as though they were animals. Implicit in this is the notion the idea that one of the lowest levels of status to assign to a human being is that of “animal.” The tendency of people to do this also implies a relationship between the degrees of emotional separation that can be established and the degree of abuse that can be met out.

    Are the analogies that PETA draws offensive? Sure, and PETA specializes in shocking, offensive PR gimmicks. It’s horribly ironic that PETA exploits the marginalization of various groups of people in the process of getting their ideas out there. It’s stupid and hypocritical. I don’t like them for this reason, and as I mentioned earlier, I particularly don’t like them because of their blatant sexism.

    However, I do think that there is something that people can learn when considering how similarities exist between different kinds of relationships in which one is viewing another person or another creature as “the other.” Both situations involve great potential for emotional distance to be established. Consequently, it is easy to exploit, abuse, and diminish the worth of any person or living creature that is seen as the other.

  30. I want Diane, who is a PETA lover to compare me, a black woman to some damn chickens, so then I will have full justification to punch her in her fucking face.

  31. I was thinking about those naked anti-fur ads on the way to work today. The use of a well known model makes a larger statement than the use of some random person or even Al Gore. A model’s job is to wear things. The model is saying she’d rather refuse to do her job than do something that offends her. This particular ad campaign is a symptom. There’s a reason why female runway models are household names but male models are not – it’s called sexism. PETA didn’t invent the underlying sexism that places a higher importance on female appearance than male appearance and creates a standard for female appearance.
    I’m not a PETA apologist, despite my lack of condemnation for this particular ad campaign. I may be anti-fur and I may be a vegetarian, but if it comes down to a choice between me and the animal, I pick me.

  32. Lizard, it was me, not Nomie, who said that PETA was anti-pet. I believe Ingrid Newkirk, their leader, is anti-pet, and here’s why:

    http://www.nokillnow.com/PETAIngridNewkirkResign.htm

    I’m sure not all PETA members are like that, but I have to wonder about Newkirk’s policies.

    I am currently volunteering in a shelter that does euthanize animals, but we try to find homes for them first. I would have preferred to work in a no-kill shelter, but Durham is pretty bad when it comes to pet treatment in general, and I want to be somewhere where I can make the most difference.

    Seriously, all of this upsets me beyond words.

  33. As someone who contributes to PETA — and is not-infrequently frustrated by their decisions as to how to spend that money — I’m struck by how the organization seems to be held to a uniquely high standard.

    All of us, surely, belong to organizations and contribute to charities that take stances with which we disagree from time to time. I give money to the Democratic Party frequently — does that mean that I must see eye-to-eye with Harry Reid on everything? Creating change is about building coalitions where you have a few things in common, not about requiring ideological purity.

    Within the animal rights movement, there is often a “fringe element” that is heavily emotion-driven. These are the folks who yell at mothers of small children. They aren’t representative of the wider organization.

    I’ve written letters to PETA — mentioning that I contribute $ — asking them to change some of their ad campaigns. I certainly don’t think they are the only valuaable group on the broad animal rights front. But they help transition lots of people to vegetarianism with their veggie starter kits, and that alone is worth continued support in my book.

  34. Re; Holocaust on your plate; How much less offensive (if at all) would it be if they compared meat eaters (fur wearers, animal abusers whatever) to Nazis, completely removing the images of concentration camps?

  35. Wow! The outpour and range of emotions here is wild. I wanted to put my two cents in and point out that PETA has more than a million members, so if three of those members act completely out of line (like they did with Stekatz on Black Friday) it shouldn’t be held against all the other people fighting for animal rights. I have protested against animal cruelty numerous times and I have never seen anyone refer to someone as a “fucking bitch” – nor would I tolerate it. That is just WRONG.

    Also, PETA as an organization never threw red paint on people. PETA members or activists might have though.

    The last thing I want to say is that while I would never tell anyone how to be a feminist or how to view feminism, I do think that it is important for women to acknowledge that it isn’t a singular view or act. Just as some feminist support porn or sex workers and others do not, some feminist find it perfectly acceptable and effective TO USE THEIR BODIES AS PROTEST. Not every women who has used her body as protest is thin and blonde and all the other qualities you are judging on. But every one of them did consciously choose to use her body as protest. Are you judging PETA or are you judging these women?

    Also, why waste the energy and outpour here on an animal rights organization that is trying to stop animal abuses on factory farms, in laboratories, and in our neighborhoods when that same passionate energy could be directed towards THE PARTIARCHIAL SYSTEM that refuses to pay attention to a women’s mind and to a message, but WILL pay attention to a women’s naked body.

    The real enemy isn’t being brought up and discussed here. What a shame.

  36. I would have preferred to work in a no-kill shelter, but Durham is pretty bad when it comes to pet treatment in genera

    \drift

    The Durham shelter has made giant strides in its treatment of animals and the efforts they make to adopt out animals. I am very proud of the changes they’ve made over the last 15 years. I know they aren’t perfect, but I think they deserve props (and you too for working there!). I’ve not adopted from the shelter, but have had to surrender strays over the years. It used to be an extremely tortured choice to make; now I know the dogs/cats will have at least a fighting chance of being seen and promoted as companion animals.

    /drift

  37. Lizard, they did have a bit of trouble in Virginia, IIRC, where it was found that they were euthanizing adoptable shelter dogs

    The first time I read that, I saw “adorable” and thought “Typical. No-one cares about animals unless they’re cute…”

  38. PETA is all about shock value and using that shock value to gain your attention so that they can push their message out.

    I am afraid that using Al Gore’s rear end would not do anything but make people ignore their message.

    PETA is all about getting their message out through means that will stick in your mind. I can vividly remember the advertisement of a man beating a woman for her fur coat. If they would have used something less shocking I may not have remembered the advertisement.

    PETA must spend a lot of time sitting with marketing and with psychologist to find out what would most shock people.

    Unfortunately, by doing this, PETA has over played their hand and has alienated those who would love to support their message.

  39. I can’t remember where I read it, but I think that PETA also had an ad comparing a serial killer who murdered x number of women to x number of animals being killed for food/fur etc.
    I don’t condone the excessively and needlessly cruel treatment of animals and I donated to the Humane Society during Hurricane Katrina to save people’s pets, but that was after I donated more money to charities to help humans. And similarly, I tend to worry a lot more about the billions of people who suffer from squalor or abuse than animals. But that’s just my opinion and I don’t want to start a flame war with animal rights activists.

  40. Also, why waste the energy and outpour here on an animal rights organization that is trying to stop animal abuses on factory farms, in laboratories, and in our neighborhoods when that same passionate energy could be directed towards THE PARTIARCHIAL SYSTEM that refuses to pay attention to a women’s mind and to a message, but WILL pay attention to a women’s naked body.

    The real enemy isn’t being brought up and discussed here. What a shame.

    To kick that ball back into your court, isn’t PETA only perpetuating that PATRIARCHIAL SYSTEM by playing to it? PETA knows that there are plenty of other ways to get attention–as evidenced by their campaigns comparing animals to various minorities–yet they choose to go the route of using naked women to do so. Why?

    I wanted to put my two cents in and point out that PETA has more than a million members, so if three of those members act completely out of line (like they did with Stekatz on Black Friday) it shouldn’t be held against all the other people fighting for animal rights.

    The outrage against PETA is not focused on the actions of a few. Their ad campaigns–funded by members’ contributrions, and designed by consensus at the top levels–are consistantly offensive. That’s where the outrage is coming from, not merely a few overzealous protesters.

  41. Here’s another example:

    People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is a U.S.-based advocacy group with a history of creating controversial ads denouncing the eating of meat. Its latest campaign makes reference to the case of 63 missing women abducted from Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside neighbourhood and alleged evidence found on Robert Pickton’s Port Coquitlam pig farm.

    Pickton has been charged with 15 counts of first-degree murder in connection with the case.

    One section of the ad that was to have run Thursday, reads: “They were drugged and dragged across the room… Their struggles and cries went unanswered… They were slaughtered and their heads sawed off… Their body parts were refrigerated… Their bones were discarded.”

    It’s thought the PETA campaign was intended to coincide with Pickton’s preliminary hearing, which had been scheduled for Monday but has been put on hold.

    Pickton is not mentioned by name in the ad but he is mentioned in a news release issued by PETA.

    “PETA has just released a print ad that illustrates the well-established connection between animal abuse and acts of severe violence against people, and compares what is done to animals on factory farms and slaughterhouses to the ways in which accused serial killer Robert William Pickton apparently dealt with his human victims,” says the press release.

    “PETA believes that Pickton’s job as a pig killer could easily have numbed him to the cries of animals who felt his knife,” the release continues.

    PETA just loves flogging female corpses, doesn’t it?

  42. PETA is all about shock value and using that shock value to gain your attention so that they can push their message out.

    I am afraid that using Al Gore’s rear end would not do anything but make people ignore their message.

    Al Gore’s naked ass in a national ad campaign would not be shocking? What do you know about him that I don’t?

    And what exactly is shocking about a naked chick? Outside of Amish country, I mean. Is Christy Turlington usually pictured swaddled in tarpaulins?

  43. I was thinking about those naked anti-fur ads on the way to work today. The use of a well known model makes a larger statement than the use of some random person or even Al Gore. A model’s job is to wear things. The model is saying she’d rather refuse to do her job than do something that offends her. This particular ad campaign is a symptom. There’s a reason why female runway models are household names but male models are not – it’s called sexism. PETA didn’t invent the underlying sexism that places a higher importance on female appearance than male appearance and creates a standard for female appearance.

    No, her job is to use her body to sell things. That’s what she’s doing for PETA: using her body to sell veganism. Plus, most of the “naked” models weren’t models–they were female celebrities.

    I didn’t argue that PETA invented the underlying sexism; I’m pretty sure those people are long dead. I’m saying that they support it and use it to make money.

  44. Also, why waste the energy and outpour here on an animal rights organization that is trying to stop animal abuses on factory farms, in laboratories, and in our neighborhoods when that same passionate energy could be directed towards THE PARTIARCHIAL SYSTEM that refuses to pay attention to a women’s mind and to a message, but WILL pay attention to a women’s naked body.

    Because I believe that PETA’s tactics and actions are wrong. I can understand that they have strong moral beliefs, but killing innocent animals, having a meat locker in their headquarters, and giving financial support to terrorist organizations (the ELF and ALF, which routinely stalk and harass lab employees and commit arson)? The ends do not justify the means. And I’m capable of being opposed to more than one thing at a time. I can say PETA engages in horrible tactics as well as saying that the use of a woman’s naked body to sell any product is demeaning and shallow.

  45. The most striking thing to me about PETA is the similarities between that organization’s tactics and those of pro-life organizations. They offer an either/or scenario, and if you’re not “with them,” then you’re “against them,” and there is absolutely no gray in betwen.

    Fighting for the humane treatment of meat animals is a wonderful thing. And yes, I said meat animals. Because you know what? Human beings as ANIMALS have been eating other animals for millenia. Do you really think Pamela Anderson is going to alter human instinct by shucking her clothes? So let’s talk about what’s “natural” here. Cavemen were omnivorous just as we are today. Let’s try and argue against tens of thousands of years of evolution and see how successful we are.

    Trying to paint any meat eater as a murderous Nazi (“Holocaust on your plate”) is the same as trying to say the same thing about a woman who decides to get an abortion–and pro-lifers use the exact same language.

    By demanding that people conform to their particular moral code they aren’t getting a damned thing done. And saying “but it was only those three PETA members, they don’t represent the entire group” is like saying the same thing about a pro-life person who commits violence in the name of his cause, or a Republican using racist slurs during a political campaign. They do represent the organization, and their actions do matter.

  46. # Antigone Says:
    August 30th, 2006 at 7:00 pm
    …what about the fact that I’ve heard PETA throwing red paint (or blood) on women’s fur coats a million times but never heard of them doing that to men’s leather jackets?

    Because in the eyes of most folks, leather is “less bad” than fur. We eat cows–we don’t just raise them for slaughter for their skin. There’s a lot less waste with a cow. Seeing as I happily eat beef, I see no problems with wearing leather. Or eating jello.

    We don’t do anything to minks but raise them to be fur coats. I don’t like killing animals I don’t eat.

  47. Because in the eyes of most folks, leather is “less bad” than fur. We eat cows–we don’t just raise them for slaughter for their skin. There’s a lot less waste with a cow. Seeing as I happily eat beef, I see no problems with wearing leather. Or eating jello.

    We don’t do anything to minks but raise them to be fur coats. I don’t like killing animals I don’t eat.

    Could be, but judging from PETA:s rhetoric like “holocaust on your plate” I doubt this is the real reason.

    I suspect it is because women are on the average easier targets for this sort of hit-and-run harassment, these punks would get their asses kicked, and badly, if they messed with the leather jacket of the type of men who generally wear them.

  48. I would love to stick a few of the more zealous PETA members out in Siberia, with the various settled tribes.

    There, people wear fur because it’s necessary. No North Face jacket is going to save them from the cold, and electricity is a great luxury.

    Similarly, Ukrainian women and men wear fur in the cold. It’s not seen as a luxury, but as a necessity. It’s cheaper than in it is in the U.S., and if a person can scrape up for a fur jacket or at least a fur hat, they will buy it. Ukrainians wore fur when they were on the barricades of the Orange Revolution, and sleeping in tents. Most Ukrainians have never even heard of North Face, or anything like that. Fur has been a cultural and practical staple of life in Ukraine for ages, and even more so in Siberia, and northern Russia.

    Our family friends who live in a town outside of Vladimir, way north of Moscow, rescue animals. They also wear fur in the winter. Some might view that as a predicament, but to them, it’s survival.

    I regularly wear my mother’s fur coat when I’m back in Ukraine in the winter (I can’t afford to buy my own clothes to prepare myself for the extreme weather conditions), and my father wears fur when he goes on expeditions to Siberia.

    Back in the States, a person in class once launched on a tirade about how my parents were “uncivilized,” or something, for doing what they did. It made me blind with rage, it really did. WHAT THE HELL do they know about what my parents’ lives are like?

    This is why I dislike PETA. This Bush-like “either you’re with us or against us” stance. No room for discussion. Zip. Nada.

  49. Because you know what? Human beings as ANIMALS have been eating other animals for millenia.

    Human beings have been enslaving, subjugating, and demeaning other human beings for just as long. Longevity does not by itself confer legitimacy. PETA pisses me off, but their underlying philosophy–that people need to be assertively shaken out of their old thought patterns and assumptions–isn’t necessarily at fault. The problem lies (as many have said) in their cheerful re-invocation of the old order in the purported service of establishing the new.

    Nomie/Natalia, sorry for my screw-up!

  50. but their underlying philosophy–that people need to be assertively shaken out of their old thought patterns and assumptions–

    Ah, the essence of progressivism, which begs the question: Why? Why do you privilege the new over the old?

  51. I notice that PETA’s never used any real Christian imagery. Why not a crucified cow? ‘He dies for your supper’. Catchy, no?

    But somehow, it’s always women, non-Christians, and non-whites. Anti-fur campaigns instead of anti-leather campaigns.

  52. Human beings have been enslaving, subjugating, and demeaning other human beings for just as long. Longevity does not by itself confer legitimacy.

    I knew the moment I hit “Submit” that someone would take this angle on my post. So be it. Equate eating meat with the enslavement and slaughter of human beings and ignore the intellectual dishonesty inherent in that parallel. Have at it.

  53. I wanted to add one thing to that last post. Someone in this thread already scoffed at the comparison of humans to lions (who eat only meat), but let me tell you…lions don’t lose a moment of sleep agonizing over the source of their food supply.

  54. Fighting for the humane treatment of meat animals is a wonderful thing. And yes, I said meat animals. Because you know what? Human beings as ANIMALS have been eating other animals for millenia. Do you really think Pamela Anderson is going to alter human instinct by shucking her clothes? So let’s talk about what’s “natural” here. Cavemen were omnivorous just as we are today. Let’s try and argue against tens of thousands of years of evolution and see how successful we are.

    I feel like this quote attacks veganism and not just PETA. I get the “our-ancestors-ate-meat” thing all the time and I don’t think it’s a very effective argument. I don’t look to Paleolithic people for a model of nutritional or moral well-being.

    That said, PETA is lame and their tactics are sexist and racist.

  55. I’m all for the ethical treatment of animals. I was a vegetarian for many years, but last year started eating meat again because I was going to Bolivia for five months and I was scared I wouldn’t be able to eat anything on a vegetarian diet. That being said, the reason I did not eat meat was because I was against the treatment of the animals in the slaughterhouses NOT that I was against the general practice among humans of eating meat (someone remind me why we, as humans, have sharp incisors please…). When I eat meat I eat organic, grass-fed meat, and I’m wondering what PETA has against organic meat products – after all, organic meat and poultry are, I believe, slaughtered ethically. If PETA insists on equating humans with animals in their ad campaigns and in general, then I would aruge it is fallacious for them to state that humans, as animals, should not eat meat. After all PETA, we’re all animals, right?

  56. I became vegan because of the enviromental impact of eating factory-farmed meet, especially beef. I didn’t know how I could keep telling people that war was not the answer when I lived a lifestyle that would always necessitate procurement of foreign oil. It takes 5,000 gallons of water to produce a pound of beef. Each cow (beef and dairy) represents 284 gallons of oil. That’s why I don’t eat beef, not because I’m not “tough” enough to stomach meat.

    Blitzgal, you bring up a good point mentioning that lions lose no sleep over the animals that they slay. I bet if more meat eaters had ever had to kill an animal they planned on eating, they would feel much differently about eating meat. But we don’t kill our own food. We buy it at the grocery store, and seldom stop to think about the plight of slaughterhouse workers, who typically make $8 an hour to slit animals’ throats as they come flying down the conveyor belt.

  57. Blitzgal, I believe I was talking about the lions thing.

    I see it as a flaw in PETA’s so-called logic. If we’re all completely the same, humans, lions, chickens, etc., why isn’t PETA out there lecturing the lions about how immoral it is to eat the gazelles? I mean, they think they’re perfectly justified in comparing black people to poultry.

    Yuck.

  58. It’s certainly possible to be healthy on a vegan diet. And it’s certainly possible to be healthy on a diet that includes meat. But people are always pointing at their incisors as if that settles things.

  59. I think it’s kind of silly for meat-eaters to compare themselves to lions whenever they sit down to eat a cheeseburger. Lions are hunters and their bodies are their weapons. Slaying a gazelle is a pretty amazing feat, and paying $3.39 for a number 1 with no onions is just kind of blah in comparison.

  60. Mary, I wouldn’t presume to tell you what, biologically, you’re supposed to do. I think there’s a lot of good evidence on both sides, but I won’t get into it, because I think that we all can do whatever we want with our bodies, despite our biological destiny. I may have a uterus, but that doesn’t mean I’m biologically “supposed” to have babies.

  61. Equate eating meat with the enslavement and slaughter of human beings and ignore the intellectual dishonesty inherent in that parallel.

    Analogizing is not the same as equating, and there’s zero “intellectual dishonesty” in pointing out that your basic premise–that meat-eating is justified because it’s gone on for a long time–was flimsier than soft tofu.

    But people are always pointing at their incisors as if that settles things.

    Yeah. Even if we assume that the “incisor argument” is absolutely sound, let’s not forget that humans are unbelievably adept at overcoming their biological destiny when it suits them. We do so for the sake of convenience and cosmetic appeal all the time; let’s not pretend that we’re powerless to do so for the sake of compassion.

  62. Basically, I can see a difference between a human eating meat, and a lion eating meat. Does PETA? If you’re going to go ahead and compare people to animals (like they did with that ridiculous and disgusting Holocaust campaign), then it should go both ways. But of course, PETA members know what’s going to happen to them if they climb into a lion’s cage at night and berate him for his lifestyle choices.

  63. But of course, PETA members know what’s going to happen to them if they climb into a lion’s cage at night and berate him for his lifestyle choices.

    Kinda like they know what’s going to happen to them if they walk into a biker bar and start berating them for their leather. So why not throw paint on little old ladies?

  64. Robyn – I am not arguing that people should or should not eat meat, and I definitely see your point that arguing biology can certainly be dangerous. But, as a woman, I have a uterus. And as a woman, ideally I can CHOOSE whether or not to have children. And as a human being biologically pre-disposed to eating meat (incisors and all), I can CHOOSE whether or not to eat meat. What PETA does is take that choice away, arguing that everyone should give up meat, and that is part of why I find fault with them.

    And to bring up another point – isn’t it sort of a luxury to give up meat? I wonder what the statistics are comparing the number of impoverished vegetarians to middle- upper-class vegetarians. I am definitely for the ethical treatment of animals, I just sometimes wonder where people’s priorities are…

  65. I can tell you right now that most vegeterians cannot survive in poverty-stricken Ukraine. If you’re poor and Ukrainian, your access to diatery supplements and healthy foods is severely limited. Most people don’t have that choice, although I’m sure that some would like to make it. I seriously doubt that the Ukrainian meat industry is ethical. I’m willing to bet it’s ten times more unethical than anything we encounter in the U.S.

    Another point for that asswipe who called my family “uncivilized” and “barbaric” because of their lifestyle.

    “Oh, and I’m sure they eat meat, if they wear fur. Ugh.”

    Duh. I eat meat too, but that’s a personal choice I was able to make. With the help of a doctor, no less.

  66. I dunno, Mary. I’m a pretty broke-ass student and I find vegetarianism cheaper than eating meat. And, historically, meat has always been a luxury.

    Just my two cents.

  67. And as a woman, ideally I can CHOOSE whether or not to have children. And as a human being biologically pre-disposed to eating meat (incisors and all), I can CHOOSE whether or not to eat meat. What PETA does is take that choice away

    And I can CHOOSE whether to beat my dog or not. Would you object to the Humane Society stepping in (literally) to “take away my choice” to harm one animal? Then why object to an organization stepping in to encourage you (they have no authority to force you, after all) to make the choice to stop harming thousands?

    Again: I don’t support PETA!–and I wish there were another high-profile national organization that offered a similar message with entirely different tactics. But the “it’s my choice” argument necessarily assumes that animals are automatically ours to kill and use if we feel like it. Not all of us agree.

    isn’t it sort of a luxury to give up meat?

    In some cases, sure; so are lots of other responsible choices, like driving a hybrid or buying recycled toilet paper. My personal philosophy is that resources and privileges bring with them responsibility. If I have the “luxury” of making a humane choice, I hope I’ll always choose to exercise it, not rationalize my decision not to.

    I just sometimes wonder where people’s priorities are…

    Vegans get that a lot. I’m far from perfect in my execution, but my priority is helping to make the world a more humane place for humans and animals alike. One need not detract from the other. (Incidentally, if easing world hunger is among our priorities, we ought to remember that moving away from a meat-based diet is one of the best things we can do.)

  68. You know, Lizard, you don’t really help your cause when you compare eating meat to beating your dog.

    And I say this as someone who’s in the process of going vegan.

  69. Within the animal rights movement, there is often a “fringe element” that is heavily emotion-driven….They aren’t representative of the wider organization.

    If anyone not affiliated with PETA has had a positive experience interacting with PETA or its individual members, I’d be interested to hear it. The personal experiences recounted here are universally negative (Hugo said only that he donated and did not mention a response to his letters.). If there are friendly, tolerant–okay, I’ll settle for not unhinged–PETA members out there, no one seems to be meeting them.

  70. Sorry, Zuzu….after 20 years in the animal business, I just get weary of people who would never dream of hurting a creature with whom they had a relationship, but who don’t seem to mind hurting creatures they’ve never met.

    I was in a restaurant recently when a woman walked by with a Boxer. A woman at the next table said to her friends, “Oh, I love Boxers, and look, they didn’t cut its ears off! Thank God–that has got to be, bar none, the cruelest thing you can possibly do to an animal. I want to KILL people who cut their dogs’ ears off.”

    In the next breath she said, “Did you see that gorgeous silver fox coat in the fur shop? God, what I wouldn’t give for that! Do you think there’s any chance my husband would buy it for me?”

    That sort of disconnection just boggles my mind.

    Congrats on the path to veganism…..

  71. Lizard, I do not think that PETA encourage anyone to do anything. I rather see them as strong-arming and terrorizing others.

    Which is exactly why I think they mostly suck, and why (as I wrote) I wish there were another group with the same message but an entirely different way of delivering it. If PETA as a whole were as respectful and sensible as the FAQs on its website, it could be a great organization.

  72. Actually, most of the world’s people, especially in developing nations, live on a vegetarian or near vegetarian diet because of the unavailability of animal-based products.

  73. People care more when one family member dies than when thousands die in earthquakes on the other side of the world. I cannot believe, Lizard, that you would realistically think people could care as much for animals they’ve never met as they do for ones in their families. Christ himself limited agape to other humans. If you are christian, what you seem to be suggesting borders on blasphemy.

  74. If you are christian, what you seem to be suggesting borders on blasphemy.

    Woah! You seem to be almost accusing Lizard of blasphemy!

    I think what Lizard was saying is that we have a pretty schizoid relationship with animals in general. We buy gifts for our kitties and then we eat pig ass for dinner. We think lambs are the cutest things in the world but mega-tasty in gyros.

  75. I cannot believe, Lizard, that you would realistically think people could care as much for animals they’ve never met as they do for ones in their families.

    That’s not what I said. Of course I would grieve more deeply over the loss of a human member of my family than over the loss of multiple humans across the globe. That doesn’t mean I’m going to give my money to an industry that is actively killing people I haven’t met.

    If you are christian

    I’m not. 🙂

  76. That doesn’t mean I’m going to give my money to an industry that is actively killing people I haven’t met.

    You pay taxes, no?

  77. You pay taxes, no?

    Touche!

    Luckily, two wrongs still don’t make a right. None of us can live a 100% pure life with no negative impact on anyone else. But I believe there’s virtue in the honest attempt to come as close as we reasonably can.

  78. I’m not. 🙂

    Phew! 😉

    Woah! You seem to be almost accusing Lizard of blasphemy!

    Only if he does the Jeebus thing, which as you can see he does not. 😉

    I think what Lizard was saying is that we have a pretty schizoid relationship with animals in general. We buy gifts for our kitties and then we eat pig ass for dinner. We think lambs are the cutest things in the world but mega-tasty in gyros.

    What I’m trying to say is that we do the same thing with people. We may not get physical enjoyment out of Pakistani earthquake deaths like we do out of a gyro, but neither do we think on one more than the other. Maybe we’ll give some money to whichever we feel worse about, but to expect that people care about animals they don’t know when we can’t even care about humans we don’t know, I don’t think it’s possible beyond a basic level, and even that can be a stretch.

  79. I think what Lizard was saying is that we have a pretty schizoid relationship with animals in general. We buy gifts for our kitties and then we eat pig ass for dinner. We think lambs are the cutest things in the world but mega-tasty in gyros.

    I can see the logic in that, Robyn, but then again, growing up in close contact with my villager relatives in Ukraine, I developed a pretty diversified view on animals and our relationships to them.

    My relatives’ German Shepherd protected them and their kids, and was a friend they could play with and a great help around the household (fetching things, warding off foxes, watching the little ones, that dog was like a Ukrainian Lassie). Their chickens’ eggs and their cow’s milk help them sustain their diet. Their jobs at the farm kept food on the table.

    They had a very different relationship with their dog than they did to their chickens, and to the cows they slaughtered. And I was raised to believe the same (doesn’t mean I didn’t cry when, as a child, I found out that animals were being slaughtered for my food). My father, as part of his forays into Siberia, used to go on long hunts with the people native to the region. With hunting dogs. The dogs were instrumental in the hunt. It may seem fucked-up to you (and to me, to an extent, although I am a meat-eater), but to them, it was the most natural thing in the world.

  80. Natalia, I grew up on a farm as well. We didn’t raise cattle, but raised chickens and turkeys, mainly, for both eggs and meat. My father also used to hunt quite a bit, although he has given it up.

    I stopped eating meat for enviromental reasons, occasionally eating organic beef or free-range eggs. After a while, I just stopped, as organic beef is expensive and I am both poor and extremely cheap. (A lucky combination!) I had eaten meat for 3 basic reasons. It was convenient, it was tasty, and it was something I’d always done. None of those reasons were compelling enough for me to justify spending a shit-ton of my money on hormone-free milk at Whole Foods after a while, and I just went veg.

  81. Well, we all know that the fact that animals are being killed for their fur/skin is ALL THE WOMENFOLK’S FAULT!!!

    Therefore, we must make seixst and degrading advestisement TO SHOW THEM. :O

    …ugh.

  82. The perception of hunting and killing animals as being natural is certainly in the eye of the beholder. I spent a number of my teen years hanging out with my friends, shooting rifles and BB guns. We killed more animals than I can recall. We thought it was fun, joked about the deaths we were responsible for, and found the whole activity to be a great way to sew the bonds of friendship. In spite of all that, there was always a whisper in the back of my mind that quietly told me that what I was doing was wrong.

    I ate meat and didn’t think much about that, but when I was confronted with death by my own hands and the hands of my friends, something inside of me sensed that something was awry.

    A few years later, I became a vegetarian.

  83. Carol Adams focuses alot of anger towards PETA in her text, The Pornography of Meat. She outlines her theory for feminist-vegetarianism (which is quite interesting) in The Sexual Politics of Meat. Both great reads (although Pornography is much easier to read – less academic) for anyone interested in feminism, vegetarianism, and animal rights.

  84. wolfa:

    I notice that PETA’s never used any real Christian imagery. Why not a crucified cow? ‘He dies for your supper’. Catchy, no?

    But somehow, it’s always women, non-Christians, and non-whites. Anti-fur campaigns instead of anti-leather campaigns.

    Jesus was a pig, apparently.

    Let’s not even discuss how appalling that is for the Jews for Jesus contingent…

  85. Guess I’m wrong — but I guessed well on the slogan. Wouldn’t fish have been better?

    Was that a national campaign, like all their others? Cause I hadn’t seen it like I saw the other stuff. I wonder how it was received.

  86. A quick quibble:

    My taxes aren’t coerced out of me, Tuomas. They are, indeed, freely given, even if there would be bad consequences were I not to make that choice. I believe in taxes as the price of living in a just, harmonious society where the less-well-off are taken care of, where my roads are maintained, where the fire and police departments get paychecks, and where schools of a secular and free-of-charge variety are available to children. I’m one of those specters you hear about now and then who actually think taxes are a Good Idea.
    I don’t always like where my money goes–I wish it weren’t, for instance, being used to kill people. I don’t mind it going to soldier’s’ pensions, but I wish it weren’t going to contribute to death and mayhem. And I wince, of course, when I get my paycheck and see how much of my wages have vanished. Doesn’t change, though, that I volunteer those taxes, every month, and if I thought it would get people socialized healthcare, I’d pay more.

    StacyM, I think that’s a good test. I decided long ago that if I wasn’t comfortable with the fact that something living was dying for my sustenance, I had no business eating meat.
    I came to a different conclusion than you did, but I certainly respect yous.

  87. When PETA makes the marketing decision to use young, skinny, white, female bodies as advertising props

    What about the owners of those young, skinny, white, female bodies who make the decision to participate? PETA can plan to use young white women in their ad campaigns, but if none agreed to participate they’d have to change their marketing strategy, wouldn’t they?

    What if they gave a Miss America Pageant and nobody came? For all the hue and cry over ‘sexism’ in advertising, and beauty pageants, (for example)nothing is ever said about the actual participating females.

    Ingrid Newkirk, a woman, heads PETA. So it’s not evil men thinking these things up this time .

  88. The boxer/fox fur contrast isn’t necessarily disconnected (though “cruelest thing you can do” was exaggeration.) There’s arguably a difference between cutting off a body part and letting the animal live crippled, vs. a painless killing of an animal which would never have had the chance to live but for our intent to kill it someday. Just as a pro-choicer can be fine with abortion but think that mothers shouldn’t take chemicals risky to fetal health if they’re *not* going to get an abortion. Or, in fewer words, the difference between torture and euthanasia.

  89. While I can’t stand PETA’s tactics or the vast majority of the “I’d rather go naked than wear fur” ads . . . I think this is the one we’ve been waiting for.

    Although it hasn’t gotten as much play as naked Pam Anderson – which reinforces PETA’s ease with playing into sexist expectations when it’s the path of least resistance.

  90. PETA can plan to use young white women in their ad campaigns, but if none agreed to participate they’d have to change their marketing strategy, wouldn’t they?

    *snort* Yes, because vaginas spontaneously produce gold and allow all women to live on clouds where their trusts funds protect them from the mean ol’ world so they can prance around naked for their kitten killing hobby club.

    Gawd, is there actually some IQ eating monster feeding off women these past few months? Or am I just getting old?

  91. One section of the ad that was to have run Thursday, reads: “They were drugged and dragged across the room… Their struggles and cries went unanswered… They were slaughtered and their heads sawed off… Their body parts were refrigerated… Their bones were discarded.”

    That’s fucking disgusting. Ugh. I’m just–I mean, really. They’ve sunk to new lows.

    Ingrid Newkirk, a woman, heads PETA. So it’s not evil men thinking these things up this time

    Um, yeah. Because, you know, women never ever condone sexism. Yep. Phyllis Schafly, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, can’t possibly be sexist, because they’re women!

  92. *snort* Yes, because vaginas spontaneously produce gold and allow all women to live on clouds where their trusts funds protect them from the mean ol’ world so they can prance around naked for their kitten killing hobby club.

    Right. They can go get jobs in the nonsexist commercials filming down the street.

  93. PETA can plan to use young white women in their ad campaigns, but if none agreed to participate they’d have to change their marketing strategy, wouldn’t they?
    Cause, you know, I’d certainly feel perfectly safe knowing that I’d ‘disappointed’ an organization that subsidizes convicted arsonists.

  94. While I can’t stand PETA’s tactics or the vast majority of the “I’d rather go naked than wear fur” ads . . . I think this is the one we’ve been waiting for.

    See? See? Could Al Gore be any worse/funnier than that?

  95. “Also, PETA as an organization never threw red paint on people. PETA members or activists might have though. ”

    Forgive me if someone has already pointed this out, I was unable to read all the comments first. This is precisely the same argument made by the anti choicers…that if an individual who just happens to be a member of Anti Choice Organization A murders a doctor who performs abortions, you cannot blame the organization. That’s bullsnot, and so is this.

  96. Now, see, the David Cross ad? Funny, and well done. Whereas a naked woman lying on a fur doesn’t evoke any particular interest, because it could just as easily be an ad for perfume or jewelry as an anti-fur message.

  97. Now, see, the David Cross ad? Funny, and well done. Whereas a naked woman lying on a fur doesn’t evoke any particular interest, because it could just as easily be an ad for perfume or jewelry as an anti-fur message.

    Shyeah. Like, “Wow, a supermodel mostly exposed! Never seen that before! Do you think it’ll have a negative effect on her career?”

  98. Don’t you mean “I am the Lizard Queen”?

    Ann Coulter is the lizard queen, unless anyone has proof she isn’t cold blooded and eats a small guinea pig every month or so…

    everyone else is merely a she- or he-lizard.

  99. I’m all for the humane treatment of animals, and when I do eat meat, I eat grass-fed. organic meat only- but that’s literally not even a handful of times a year.

    I think the vast majority of the population would be served better healthwise if they were to focus on veggies and eat a more vegetarian diet.

    Therefore, while I’m not completely vegetarian, when I invite my friends for dinner, I try to make veggie meals that they’ll enjoy, and give positive ways to encourage veggie-eating without being unpleasant or sanctimonious.

    I support environmental and animal rights groups as well as pro-choice groups and charities for people. To me, the ideals of being a pro-choice female is very congruent with my animal rights and welfare- because animals are not biologically connected to my body. They are autonomous beings. Animals don’t take up house in my uterus and need my body to stay alive. I’ve met a lot of fantastic feminist women in the animal welfare community. I also believe that the basics of animal welfare coincide with my work with the human community. Nothing has softened and encouraged some hardened kids or lonely seniors like some of the therapy dogs I’ve brought to places like juvenile hall, jails and retirement facilities. I think the focus of an effort to make a more humane community is a noble one- and something that should be encouraged, not discouraged. I honestly don’t think I’m *better* than a dog or cat- I’m a completely different creature, but not better. I’m an animals, and I will, on rare occasions, consume one. On the other hand, I would not fault the mountain lion or shark if I was to get eaten by one- I would be sad because they would be hunted down, and innocent animals could get killed in the process, as a result of them eating me.

    Lizard Queen, I’ve enjoyed your posts.

  100. A vagina is not a “get out of the patriarchy free” card.

    And how does that comment answer in any way what I wrote?

    Yes, because vaginas spontaneously produce gold and allow all women to live on clouds where their trusts funds protect them from the mean ol’ world so they can prance around naked for their kitten killing hobby club.

    Even after 40 years of feminism, women are still so restricted in their career choices that even smarmy work for PETA is not passed over on principle? There are no other jobs for women than posing for PETA ads!? Good God!!! Someone do something!

    Phyllis Schafly, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, can’t possibly be sexist, because they’re women!

    That was my point…thank you for making it again for me. How can an ad campaign from an organization run by a woman be sexist and patriarchal?

    Talk about IQ-eating monsters…looks like alien brain suckers have already been here days ago.

  101. That was my point…thank you for making it again for me. How can an ad campaign from an organization run by a woman be sexist and patriarchal?

    Talk about IQ-eating monsters…looks like alien brain suckers have already been here days ago.

    Please, please tell me you’re not serious, crella.

  102. And how does that comment answer in any way what I wrote?

    The answer, interpreted, is “Just because you’re a woman (i.e., have a vagina), doesn’t mean you can’t/don’t participate in perpetuating sexism and the patriarchy.” Which seems to be quite a fine answer to your claim that somehow being female means you can’t possibly be sexist against women.

    That was my point…thank you for making it again for me. How can an ad campaign from an organization run by a woman be sexist and patriarchal?

    Unlike you, however, the person who made that comment was being sarcastic. Women can be and are sexist against other women. Women can and do buy into sexist stereotypes and help perpetuate them. When Ann Coulter suggests that maybe it would have been better if women had never been given the right to vote, what, you don’t consider that a sexist statement simply because Ann is a woman?

  103. I think this works better if you think of sexism not as individual acts of men being mean to women, but as a system that enforces gender roles and oppresses women. Feminists oppose the things we think reinforce this system, whether they are done by men or women. Feminism is not about ending individual acts of male-on-female meanness, but about restructuring society to be more just and equitable.

  104. The personal experiences recounted here are universally negative (Hugo said only that he donated and did not mention a response to his letters.). If there are friendly, tolerant–okay, I’ll settle for not unhinged–PETA members out there, no one seems to be meeting them.

    Yeah, I wouldn’t trust too many blog thread posts when it comes to animal rights issues in general. The meat industry/ restaurant lobbies as well as Barnum and Baileys have spent millions spreading vicious lies about PETA (and other groups) for years now. And when it comes to PETA, they have good reason: PETA, of all the animal orgs, is by far the most successful when it comes to exposing/ combatting abusive industry practices.

    Two quick examples: GM now uses test dummies instead of live animals in simulated crashes directly because of PETA; the fast food industry has made some (LONG OVERDUE) constructive changes, mostly due to PETA’s campaigns. (it was funny to watch how, even as they announced their changes, they went out of their way to deny PETAs influence.)

    So while the discussion over sexism and shock tactics in ads is obviously alid, don’t buy into the anti-PETA ” PETA is ELF, PETA murders animals” propaganda. It’s corporate sponsored bull shit.

  105. check out
    this link

    In fact, Pottker would eventually learn of a massive dirty tricks operation, involving former CIA officials and operatives, that would target Ringling enemies such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and other groups, not just Pottker.

    Chilling stuff. And really just the tip of the iceberg.

  106. ThesaurusLegend: Synonyms Related Words Antonyms
    Noun 1. sexist – a man with a chauvinistic belief in the inferiority of women
    male chauvinist
    antifeminist – someone who does not believe in the social or economic or political equality of men and women
    Adj. 1. sexist – discriminatory on the basis of sex (usually said of men’s attitude toward women)
    discriminatory, prejudiced – being biased or having a belief or attitude formed beforehand; “a prejudiced judge”

    ‘Sexist’ in the original definition meant discrimination of the opposite sex…

    ‘get out of the patriarchy free’ just struck me as funny because by definition the patriarchy is something to which women cannot belong. ‘get out from under the patriarchy’ perhaps.

    So now you tell me that women who plan and execute ad campaigns featuring scantily clad women are forced to by the patriarchy? Yes, dears lets really stretch our imaginations to find more cop-outs to excuse women from behaviour that does not fit your view of what women are.Someone must be forcing women to appear in PETA ads…all those women in Playboy and in the MIss America pageant are not enjoying themselves, they are all hostages of the patriarchy.You cannot handle the reality that some women LIKE appearing naked, or in beauty pageants. The money, the attention.

    While I’m at it I’d really like a clear explanation of how a global cabal of men was formed hundreds,nay, thousands of years ago despite no communication system besides mail that could take months or years to reach it’s destination, some nations being hermit nations (Japan for 250 years for example) and constant global power shifts such as the Roman Empire and the Otoman Empire. Each nation had it’s own code of law, religion ,with Islam radically different in it’s outlook from Christian nations with neither willing to adopt each other’s beliefs to the point of frequent bloodbaths.During all of this, how did a Patriarchy conspire to keep women down in all nations?

    Adela Rogers St.John noted something early on about feminism;

    The Modern Woman is the curse of the universe, a disaster, that’s what. She thinks that before her arrival on the scene no woman ever did anything worthwhile before. No woman was ever liberated until her time. No woman really amounted to anything.”

    You ought to look her up…born in the late 1800s she became a famous reporter in New York starting at the age of 20. All while (according to young women of this generation) being oppressed, and chained to the stove barefoot. Quite an accomplishment.

  107. Don’t you mean “I am the Lizard Queen”?

    That’s my tagline on another site. 🙂

    Ann Coulter is the lizard queen

    TAKE THAT BACK! If you’re going to malign innocent reptiles by likening them to The Evil One, I’m going to throw paint on you.

  108. While I’m at it I’d really like a clear explanation of how a global cabal of men was formed hundreds,nay, thousands of years ago despite no communication system besides mail that could take months or years to reach it’s destination, some nations being hermit nations (Japan for 250 years for example) and constant global power shifts such as the Roman Empire and the Otoman Empire. Each nation had it’s own code of law, religion ,with Islam radically different in it’s outlook from Christian nations with neither willing to adopt each other’s beliefs to the point of frequent bloodbaths.During all of this, how did a Patriarchy conspire to keep women down in all nations?

    No one said that’s what happened, so I hope you don’t actually expect any kind of explanation to an event no one has claimed occurred. That isn’t what the patriarchy is.

    The patriarchy is a social order in which men hold the majority of the power. In any power structure, it is hardly unlikely that those in power will seek to maintain and extend their power. In fact, history indicates that is precisely what will happen. This occurs through many means, some of them more subtle than others. One common one is to convince those not in power that the people in power are there because they are, in some fashion, superior to everyone else. See also, the divine right of kings, among other methods. (Also many racist and sexist tropes put forth to explain why white men were better suited to rule than non-whites.) The rest of the populace often buys into this for complex psychological and sociological reasons and will defend the order of things. For example, modern revolutions in the West were not started by the poor, but by the middle class. Throughout the 18th and 19th centuries, for example, the poor often were the defenders of the monarchy, despite the appalling ways in which the monarchs would treat them. As the middle class grew, they were just two steps below the seat of power and, as the fortunes of the nobility waned, the wealthy merchants suddenly became marriageable, albeit still inferior for a long time. The implications of this social change on Western societies were profound. This is but one example. The racist and sexist tropes were also bought into for centuries and, in many cases, still are.

    I could also point out to you the fact that the 3 main Western religions all derived from a single source (well, it’s not quite as simple as that, but for the sake of something approaching brevity, let’s leave it at that), so that while there are obvious differences, there are also similarities. Being a representative of that source religion, I can tell you that it is hardly non-sexist in its belief structure. So whilst beliefs about who is the main religious figure differ, beliefs about women are strikingly consistent. As 2 of the 3 religions spread globally, they took their sexist belief structures with them.

    There was no great conspiracy, no cabal of men in contact with each other to make this happen. Historically, societies were predominantly patriarchal in nature. Not all of them, but most of them. I’m sure there are explainable sociological reasons why that occurred, but I’m not sure it’s relevant to your particular question, even if I were well-versed in the theory behind it. It’s an objectively verifiable fact that most societies were run by men. Even as power shifts occurred, they did not occur between the sexes, but between nation-states, the majority of which were controlled by men. If you cannot grasp a simple fact like those in power seek to maintain their own power, as they perceive they have everything to lose by giving it up, I don’t know what else to tell you.

    Now, if you want to know more about the theory behind this, I suggest you stop asking snarky questions on a blog and go do some research of your own. Because I don’t know about anyone else, but this is the last time I’m inclined to respond to your snark. And if you don’t want to know more, but are still inclined to raise straw-feminist arguments, well, then I suggest you don’t expect to be treated nicely on an obviously feminist blog and accept the moniker of “troll”.

  109. crella, first of all, there’s this amazing thing that the kids use these days called sarcasm. I know it’s a difficult concept to grasp, but try!

    But seriously, as Lesley said, don’t come commenting on a blog called “feministe” without some sort of knowledge of feminism. Or, at the very least, with an openness toward learning what feminism is about.

    Now, I am, and I’m sure many people are, more than willing to engage with you if you make substantive arguments. I don’t know, like, “Animal subjugation is part of the patriarchy, and they are simply using the tools of the patriarchy to chip away at itself.” You’d be wrong, but you’d at least have something. As it is, all you’re going to get is snark thrown back at you, because we won’t argue with you substantively unless you present an argument with substance.

  110. Hm. Apparently, I love to use the word “substance” and its various forms as much as possible. I guess it’s time for me to buy a fucking thesaurus.

  111. Adela Rogers St.John noted something early on about feminism;

    The Modern Woman is the curse of the universe, a disaster, that’s what. She thinks that before her arrival on the scene no woman ever did anything worthwhile before. No woman was ever liberated until her time. No woman really amounted to anything.”

    She also said, “I wish women would stand together and shackle the men who want to move us backwards” but I guess she was just talking out of her ass that time.

    Oh, that was sarcasm.

  112. In the late 1800s women couldn’t even vote. Throughout history, some wealthy and privileged women like Eleanor of Aquitaine or Cleopatra were able to gain power and influence, but the existence of a few exceptions ignores the fact that most women were restricted to the wife/mother role until very recently in the Western world.

  113. Many men could also not vote if they were not landowners, or if they were not married. The national vote and states’ voting laws are anentirely different thing. Go and a’Google it for yourselves…several states allowed women to vote in the 1800s…when ‘women got the vote’ was when a national ,uniform voting law came into effect. Until then voting laws in the US were a patchwork.

    See also, the divine right of kings, among other methods.

    Exactly. While a few elite men like kings and dictators had power, Everyman did not. Men’s status was as bad as that of women…serfdom, indentured servitude, press gangs on ships…

    However, I would point out that Japan had several empresses starting as early as 800. Mary Queen of Scots, Queen Victoria, Catherine the Great all ruled nations. The first all-female medical school was opened in Boston in 1850…someone must have been attending and in numbers to justify building a separate institution. Almost any university you look up, even elite Ivy League colleges, list the date of the first female granted a degree at their institutions. Many are mid-1800s. A lot of female accomlishment, the evidence of which is available anywhere, is brushed under the rug by womenevery time someone says ‘all women could ever do was cook and have babies’.

    I hope you don’t actually expect any kind of explanation to an event no one has claimed occurred.

    No one has claimed it, perhaps, but think about the whole patriarchy idea. Supposedly all women in all nations were kept from getting a education, from having any kind of power at all. This kind of universal oppression requires organization. There is no political movement, no empire which has managed to dominate the entireworld. I ask how was this allegedly possible.

    you present an argument with substance.

    I weary of reading about the patriarchy being blamed for women’s actions. Right here on this very thread I was told that having a vagina does not equal a ticket out of the patriarchy…this indicates that women on this blog believe that a patriarchy that inlfuences or determines the course of women’s behaviour continues ot exist and continues to have inlfluence. This is an idea that I find patently ridiculous.It is unreasonable to ask for proof?

    If naked women appear in ads, they must have chosen to. If the president of PETA decides to run such campaigns, then that is her outlook, the patriarchy didn’t make her do it. I dislike the idea of women, when they act badly, appear naked, kill their kids, whatever, it is always anyone’s fault but their own…yes, I was sarcastic, but in response to the ludicrous idea that women have no choice when it comes to what work they do, that women are so hard up they have to get work where they can —

    Yes, because vaginas spontaneously produce gold and allow all women to live on clouds where their trusts funds protect them from the mean ol’ world

    Getting work where and when you can is a fact of life, but it does not account for all instances of modelling and nudity by a long shot. It is some women’s choice to do such work. The PETA KFC girls in Tokyo were having a ball when I saw them on the news in their body stockings with chicken tails. Posing for pics with Japanese high school kids, being interviewed , they looked to be enjoying themselves.

    Katie, Katie, Katie….you still have not answered a single question , just chosen to take cheap shots. As long as you use ‘substance’ in it’s correct form you’ll have no gripes from me. Because you don’t like the actual definition of ‘sexism’ , because you’d like to be able to call women sexist isn’t my fault. A little ‘subtance’ to your answers to me might not be a bad idea.Again I’ll be accused of ‘snark’ but I answer like with like. Your attitude is condescending in the extreme, and you haven’t refuted a thing yet…

    crella, first of all, there’s this amazing thing that the kids use these days called sarcasm. I know it’s a difficult concept to grasp, but try!

    …….

  114. but the existence of a few exceptions ignores the fact that most women were restricted to the wife/mother role until very recently in the Western world.

    Things haven’t changed that much in the western world.

Comments are currently closed.